nuclear fuel-air bomb
Most scenarios I've seen involve a container, what if they put a 10kton nuc in the bottom of a gas/oil tanker do you think it would vaporize and ignight creating a much larger exposion?
I thought of this because we have a bio diesel plant due to open soon
and some of the oil will come from indonesia [infested with muslem pirates] in standard tankers.
They could hijack a tanker and prep it on the way, the oil would shield the radiation much better than any other cargo, and since they expect a container it could enter port without being screened [like 3% of containers].
I was hesitent to post this because I didn't want to give the ragheads ideas, but the feds will read it first, maybe the ragheads allready thought of it.
Do you think it would explode or just burn?
I thought of this because we have a bio diesel plant due to open soon
and some of the oil will come from indonesia [infested with muslem pirates] in standard tankers.
They could hijack a tanker and prep it on the way, the oil would shield the radiation much better than any other cargo, and since they expect a container it could enter port without being screened [like 3% of containers].
I was hesitent to post this because I didn't want to give the ragheads ideas, but the feds will read it first, maybe the ragheads allready thought of it.
Do you think it would explode or just burn?
0
-
im no nuclear physicist but it seems like the massive amounts of liquid fuel would only "muffle" the blast of a nuclear weapon. it seems that they work better when given an onubstructed path, preferably airbust. 0 -
Just a thought a super tanker carries 300k ton of oil, if you figure about 20 to 30 times that of oxygen to burn it you are looking at a 6 Meg fuel-air blast. 0 -
Nuclear or not, there's more involved in getting a fuel air munition to function than simply putting an explosive inside a tank of flammable liquid. 0 -
It's sucks the oxygen out of enemy bunkers...But what do i know [V] 0 -
Fuel Air Bombs work by igniting in mid-air, sucking all the air in the immediate vicinity in and using that air as accelrant to the massive thermal explosion that they create. On the other hand setting off a nuclear bomb in a supertanker probably wouldn't add that much to what a nuke would normally do because the reaction at ground zero would probably instantly turn anything there, including gas or oil into its component atoms. Might make it a little hotter, but I doubt it would add so much that it would make it worse than it already was. 0 -
it would be like farting in a large waste treatment facility. no way any measurable change would occur. 0 -
Not everything is improved by making it nuclear. Fuel-air explosives are just fine the way they are.[;)][:D] 0 -
Disassociated oil[free carbon/hydrogen] will still "burn" when it comes in to contact with oxygen.
I visualize a 1/4 to 1/2 mile blast bubble of vaporized oil and free radicles mixing with air as it rises with the mushroom cloud, when the ratio is right it is ignited by an incandescent piece of flying scrap metal or residual heat.
just a thought.0 -
longsantefe,
A nuclear weapon and fuel-air explosive pretty much have the same effect: a large blast combined with immense heat followed by a massive inrush of air to fill the vacuum caused by the blast. For all intents and purposes, a fuel-air explosive is a conventional nuke.
A nuclear weapon detonation would in all likelihood vaporize the oil mixture right off the bat and would not lead itself to a double-whammy. By the time a mushroom cloud is forming, most of the heatwave has already passed on and relying upon some secondary source for ignition would be a little imprecise and impractical to plan for.0 -
wow, a bubble of burning oil that is spread over a mile.
that would be like a drop on each house that have already been vaporized in the 3 mile blast radius
quote:Originally posted by longsantafe
Disassociated oil[free carbon/hydrogen] will still "burn" when it comes in to contact with oxygen.
I visualize a 1/4 to 1/2 mile blast bubble of vaporized oil and free radicles mixing with air as it rises with the mushroom cloud, when the ratio is right it is ignited by an incandescent piece of flying scrap metal or residual heat.
just a thought.0 -
Whilst we're talking about super nukes, what about a shaped charge nuclear weapon? Or nukes set off simultaneously so that their blast radii intersected right over your primary (and much hated, apparently) target? 0 -
[:D]
yeah , and do it at a fireworks factory after the workers have eaten mexican.
and there cars are gassed up[:o)]0 -
While not an expert on these matters, I thought a "fuel-air" bomb worked by spraying the fuel out as an areosol just prior to detonation.
It seems to me that using the oil as mentioned would not enhance the blast in any significant way.
On the other hand....it seems to me there might be a possiblity of getting the fuel-air effect by rapidly venting a large container of Natural Gas (does that stuff get transported in Supertankers?) prior to igniting it by explosion0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ba Sardo
Whilst we're talking about super nukes, what about a shaped charge nuclear weapon?
I think we already have those. Didn't Bush authorize the development of mini "bunker-buster" nukes?
If not us, surely the Russians have them.....they developed everything from nuclear land mines to nuclear torpedoes....0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by Ba Sardo
Whilst we're talking about super nukes, what about a shaped charge nuclear weapon?
I think we already have those. Didn't Bush authorize the development of mini "bunker-buster" nukes?
If not us, surely the Russians have them.....they developed everything from nuclear land mines to nuclear torpedoes....
The bunker buster was just a gravity bomb that was designed to penetrate a lot of earth and concrete before blowing up. According to some studies, however, the design is not workable and only penetrates about two to ten feet of dirt before blowing up - this has no appreciable effect on its bunker-busting abilities, but increases radioactive fallout.
As far as I know, shaped charge nukes are still in the designing stages, but I could be wrong.0 -
no. any nuclear or atomic explosion would completely vaporize (as in, "gone") everything within a certain radius first, farther out it would incinerate it, farther out it would blast it with pressure waves- made from the superheated air from the incineration radius.
I think there's almost as much of a blast from the air collapsing back in as there was from it going out.
so, it's a question of how far away the oil would have to be for it to be expanded, vaporized (intact droplets) and heated to the point of combustion.
my guess would be the inside of a tanker isn't far enough away, and if the oil was made to be far enough away to get that effect, it wouldn't add much to the nuclear explosion already in progress that it would take to do it in the first place that far away.
so it's not a really good idea. I don't think.0 -
This one ranks right up with the need for a CCW because of all the illegal aliens (criminals) in Maryland. 0 -
?? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Not everything is improved by making it nuclear. Fuel-air explosives are just fine the way they are.[;)][:D]
+1. They're the most powerful, non-nuclear explosive in the US arsenal. And they can use them whenever and (almost) wherever they want BECAUSE they're non-nuclear.0 -
Folks sure do have some misconscrewed (is this a new word?) ideas about conventional and non-conventional weapons. Due to the concept of compressing the core equally of a special weapon, a "shaped charge" is not fesible if a sustained reaction is required. Even a poorly built special weapon has a conventional explosive triggering device so you have to be real careful with them.
FAE (Fuel Air Explosive) bombs require that the explosive be dispersed into the atmosphere prior to ignition. This is rather difficult to obtain as it must be almost instantanous to case separation. Otherwise incomplete combustion is the result.
Most everybody got the tanker/special weapon senario right. The addition of the oil is moot.
FAE weapons are very powerful and can produce the largest conventional blast of any weapon currently in the US inventory.0 -
p3skyking,
You're absolutely right about the shaped nuclear charge - I suppose the wording of my question should have been thus:
What about a nuclear device whose explosive power was directed as opposed to simply just an all-around kablooey?
It's a more scientific question, doncha think?[:D]0 -
1 ton of tnt = a little under 4 milion btu, so 1 kton = 4 trilion btu.
so a 1k ton device would supply 4 trilion btu, this would raise the temp of 300 k ton of oil from 60 deg f to 6000 degrees, figureing %50 of the blast was absorbed by the water.
That kind of temperature would turn most of the oil into free carbon/hydrogen that would spontainiously combust on exposure to oxygen.
my question is would it boom or whompf.0 -
I tried a FART (Feul Air Reeking of Tacos) weapon with a lighter once, burned my ass 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Ba Sardo
p3skyking,
You're absolutely right about the shaped nuclear charge - I suppose the wording of my question should have been thus:
What about a nuclear device whose explosive power was directed as opposed to simply just an all-around kablooey?
It's a more scientific question, doncha think?[:D]
Ba,
The only trouble is nothing I know of can direct a nuclear explosion. Underwater and underground blast have consistantly shown an expanding bubble. While coral or rock formations shield what is on the other side somewhat, the blast effect is not redirected to any significant degree.
Whereas a thin copper cone is sufficent to shape a conventional explosive, anything used to shape a non-conventional explosive is vaporized in less than 1/100th of a second.
Just gonna have to wait on phasers I guess.[8D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dennis Smith
I remember the army field-expedient trick of putting a pound or two of C-4 under a 55 gallon barrel of fuel. Foos gas(?)Normally just a Claymore wired to the side of the drum.
Still just a firebomb though, not a FAM.0 -
Yep, there are LNG tankers - killed whole forests of Balsa Wood (and the Model Balsa that was available got really expensive and worse quality) for the insulation of the tanks. Many in the transportation industry worry about a "leaky" tanker in an enclosed (dished out) harbor - BIIIG BUDDA BOOM !!
And our Bunker Buster bombs are capable of a lot more than posted above...I understand that the casings are Sections of Naval Gun Barrels that we can no longer make, due to the "Rust Belt" phenom... I heard they can penetrate pretty far down, then detonate.
Fuel-Air Bombs need time to disperse the fuel...if you were to use the Nuclear Explosion to try to disperse the oil, it wouldn't have been ready for the ignition yet, and would just dissociate the oil into various fractions like sludge, varnish, lighterfluid, gasoline, etc...It would act as a "mass damper" for the pressure wave, and might actually make the effects of the Nuclear Explosion less. Would surely contribute to subsequent fires, but probably not to the pressure wave/pulse.
That is my guess, anyway...
Let's go test it in some sandy desert, far, far away!!0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
26 comments