The tank weighed 115 lbs. The full explosive weighed over 440lb. "We were able to explode an already-weakened Mirari tank by strapping 300 lbs of C4 to it" doesn't have quite the same clickbait...
The tank weighed 115 lbs. The full explosive weighed over 440lb.
"We were able to explode an already-weakened Mirari tank by strapping 300 lbs of C4 to it" doesn't have quite the same clickbait catch to it though.
Pretty sure the actual hydrogen tank didn't really add that much impact over just adding an extra 115 lbs of C4. A similar affect probably would have been seen by attaching several propane tanks.
Not a 400lb bomb, but a bomb that exploded with the force of 400lbs of TNT. C-4 has 1.34 TNT equivalency, so it's only 34% more energetic than TNT and weighs the same. So while 300lbs of C-4 on...
Not a 400lb bomb, but a bomb that exploded with the force of 400lbs of TNT.
C-4 has 1.34 TNT equivalency, so it's only 34% more energetic than TNT and weighs the same. So while 300lbs of C-4 on board would be needed to make the 400lbs of TNT explosion and that'd just be a waste of C-4.
Hydrogen on the other hand has 28.65 TNT equivalency, so 1lb of hydrogen is 28.65lbs TNT equivalent. If we take the 400lbs of TNT claim and work backwards, that's 13.96lbs of hydrogen. The Mirai has two tanks that can hold a total of 11lbs of compressed hydrogen. Assuming they were loaded to capacity, there's 315.15lbs of TNT equivalent in the tanks, leaving us with 84.85lbs of TNT equivalent to make up, which would be 63.32lbs of C-4.
Happy to do so! Had a nice little morning looking up details of explosives and nuclear weapons while watching videos about autonomous drone warfare, I'm sure the government is thrilled.
Happy to do so! Had a nice little morning looking up details of explosives and nuclear weapons while watching videos about autonomous drone warfare, I'm sure the government is thrilled.
Thank you for the information on TNT equivalency (as applied outside of nuclear device yields) - I hadn't realized the term could be applied to the whole range of chemical explosives as well,...
Thank you for the information on TNT equivalency (as applied outside of nuclear device yields) - I hadn't realized the term could be applied to the whole range of chemical explosives as well, though it makes logical sense.
It's possible (though not certain) that the purpose and effect of the large volume of compressed Hydrogen was to add a thermobaric effect to the bomb. It would be a non-ideal (not maximized)...
It's possible (though not certain) that the purpose and effect of the large volume of compressed Hydrogen was to add a thermobaric effect to the bomb. It would be a non-ideal (not maximized) thermobaric effect since the ignition source would be present from the moment of dispersal, but it probably worked.
For reference, in a thermobaric explosion of maximized effect, a non-igniting concussive blast disperses a fuel or explosive cloud, and then that cloud of fuel or explosive is detonated, resulting in a significantly increased shockwave explosion/implosion sequence. Much more damaging to structures.
Put another way, you can have the same amount of energy released in two totally different bombs: in one you can have a minor pop and a massive fiery hot flare-up that lasts half a minute, in another you can have a massive building-crushing boom. These two events can have exactly the same total energy released, but shaping how (and over how much time) that energy gets released dramatically changes the destructive potential. Same concept between shooting a bullet out of a gun and emptying the powder from that same cartridge into a pile and putting a match to it (which results in a brief flare-up and no bang). Same energy, but only one example kills.
As to Hydrogen vs Propane? 1Kg of Hydrogen is 141.8MJ of energy content, while 1Kg of Propane has 50.3MJ of energy content (per WolframAlpha). So, on a per-mass basis, Hydrogen does give more bang for the buck.
No. There are three primary types of nuclear weapons. Fission, boosted fission, and thermonuclear. The latter uses heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) as the fuel, be it in pure...
No.
There are three primary types of nuclear weapons. Fission, boosted fission, and thermonuclear. The latter uses heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) as the fuel, be it in pure form or lithium deuteride that gets converted. It is a thermonuclear bomb, which because of the basis of the fuel is referred to as a hydrogen bomb by laypersons, aka colloquially.
The invention of the Ukrainians is as genious as the headline is imbecilic. But really, this is a really clever way to get more heavy explosives for them, and mobile too. Ukrainians have really...
The invention of the Ukrainians is as genious as the headline is imbecilic.
But really, this is a really clever way to get more heavy explosives for them, and mobile too. Ukrainians have really shown to be adaptable and innovative, despite all the struggles.
I have to admit, I expected the war to be over in a few weeks, maybe a month or two. I suspect that US and European policymakers thought similarly. It's been really impressive to see how resilient...
I have to admit, I expected the war to be over in a few weeks, maybe a month or two. I suspect that US and European policymakers thought similarly. It's been really impressive to see how resilient the Ukrainian people and military have been. It's also been frustrating because of how reluctant their allies have been to fully assist them.
This shows great leadership tbh. They knew something had to change, and knew the time was there to make the big gamble. They've not only won the gamble, but even tipped the scales of attrition at...
This shows great leadership tbh. They knew something had to change, and knew the time was there to make the big gamble. They've not only won the gamble, but even tipped the scales of attrition at least for now given this'll increase domestic instability.
The bigger question that now looms is the next US presidential election.
The tank weighed 115 lbs. The full explosive weighed over 440lb.
"We were able to explode an already-weakened Mirari tank by strapping 300 lbs of C4 to it" doesn't have quite the same clickbait catch to it though.
Pretty sure the actual hydrogen tank didn't really add that much impact over just adding an extra 115 lbs of C4. A similar affect probably would have been seen by attaching several propane tanks.
Not a 400lb bomb, but a bomb that exploded with the force of 400lbs of TNT.
C-4 has 1.34 TNT equivalency, so it's only 34% more energetic than TNT and weighs the same. So while 300lbs of C-4 on board would be needed to make the 400lbs of TNT explosion and that'd just be a waste of C-4.
Hydrogen on the other hand has 28.65 TNT equivalency, so 1lb of hydrogen is 28.65lbs TNT equivalent. If we take the 400lbs of TNT claim and work backwards, that's 13.96lbs of hydrogen. The Mirai has two tanks that can hold a total of 11lbs of compressed hydrogen. Assuming they were loaded to capacity, there's 315.15lbs of TNT equivalent in the tanks, leaving us with 84.85lbs of TNT equivalent to make up, which would be 63.32lbs of C-4.
11lbs of hydrogen + 63lbs of C-4 = 400lbs of TNT
Thanks! The details were light, I didn't have my coffee, and I appreciate the math.
Happy to do so! Had a nice little morning looking up details of explosives and nuclear weapons while watching videos about autonomous drone warfare, I'm sure the government is thrilled.
Thank you for the information on TNT equivalency (as applied outside of nuclear device yields) - I hadn't realized the term could be applied to the whole range of chemical explosives as well, though it makes logical sense.
It's possible (though not certain) that the purpose and effect of the large volume of compressed Hydrogen was to add a thermobaric effect to the bomb. It would be a non-ideal (not maximized) thermobaric effect since the ignition source would be present from the moment of dispersal, but it probably worked.
For reference, in a thermobaric explosion of maximized effect, a non-igniting concussive blast disperses a fuel or explosive cloud, and then that cloud of fuel or explosive is detonated, resulting in a significantly increased shockwave explosion/implosion sequence. Much more damaging to structures.
Put another way, you can have the same amount of energy released in two totally different bombs: in one you can have a minor pop and a massive fiery hot flare-up that lasts half a minute, in another you can have a massive building-crushing boom. These two events can have exactly the same total energy released, but shaping how (and over how much time) that energy gets released dramatically changes the destructive potential. Same concept between shooting a bullet out of a gun and emptying the powder from that same cartridge into a pile and putting a match to it (which results in a brief flare-up and no bang). Same energy, but only one example kills.
As to Hydrogen vs Propane? 1Kg of Hydrogen is 141.8MJ of energy content, while 1Kg of Propane has 50.3MJ of energy content (per WolframAlpha). So, on a per-mass basis, Hydrogen does give more bang for the buck.
Finally someone found a way to make a mirai useful
I honestly believe that the person responsible for this headline should be charged with a crime.
For real. "Hydrogen Bomb" brings to mind exactly one thing and that's not what this was.
No.
There are three primary types of nuclear weapons. Fission, boosted fission, and thermonuclear. The latter uses heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) as the fuel, be it in pure form or lithium deuteride that gets converted. It is a thermonuclear bomb, which because of the basis of the fuel is referred to as a hydrogen bomb by laypersons, aka colloquially.
The invention of the Ukrainians is as genious as the headline is imbecilic.
But really, this is a really clever way to get more heavy explosives for them, and mobile too. Ukrainians have really shown to be adaptable and innovative, despite all the struggles.
I have to admit, I expected the war to be over in a few weeks, maybe a month or two. I suspect that US and European policymakers thought similarly. It's been really impressive to see how resilient the Ukrainian people and military have been. It's also been frustrating because of how reluctant their allies have been to fully assist them.
This shows great leadership tbh. They knew something had to change, and knew the time was there to make the big gamble. They've not only won the gamble, but even tipped the scales of attrition at least for now given this'll increase domestic instability.
The bigger question that now looms is the next US presidential election.