Weapon Science and Technology PDF

This is not registered version of Total HTML Converter
The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science
Lo g in
View Full Version : Military Science
Improvised Weapons
Detonation and Demolition
Weapon Science and Technology
Gunsmithing and Firearm Modification
Tactics, Training, Defense, and Safety
Ammunition and Reloading
Rifles and Shotguns
Handguns
Automatic and Assault Weapons
Blackpowder and Muzzleloaded Guns
Firearm Accessories
vBulletin v3.7.2, Copyright 2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > W eapon Science and Technology
Log in
View Full Version : Weapon Science and Technology
1. New Israeli weapon kicks up stink (11 replies)

2. Active Denial System, A directed-energy weapon (18 replies)
3. New OICW idea/Hybrid weapon (21 replies)
4. New kind of blast proof fabric (5 replies)
5. coilguns/gauss guns (7 replies)
6. Blackwater range days (1 replies)
7. Tungsten: The Cancer Shrapnel (39 replies)
8. Burning bullets - melting your way into a tank (28 replies)
9. Car penetration by firearms (20 replies)
10. DREAD - a revolutionary new weapon system (61 replies)
11. New firearm for UK police (29 replies)
12. bullet accuracy? (13 replies)
13. Making barrels (29 replies)
14. 4barrel electricaly fired gizmo (6 replies)
15. More on impact detonation of projectiles (piezo/pyroelectricity) - Archive file (1 replies)
16. Let's outshine the sun (77 replies)
17. Future Fighting Weapons (20 replies)

The Explosives and W eapons Forum
Lo g in
View Full Version: The Explosives and Weapons Forum
Log in
User Nam e: Password:

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > More on im pact de tonation
of projectiles (piezo/pyroelectricity) - Archive file
Log in
View Full Version : More on impact detonation of projectiles (piezo/pyroelectricity) - Archive file
zaibatsu March 6th, 2003, 03:07 PM

The Real
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 136
From : C olum b u s , O H
Registered: DEC 2000
posted February 18, 2001 12:29 PM
I had a conversation with a US Arm y EOD perso n n e l . H e t o l d m e t h a t m a n y m i s s i l e s a n d e ven projectiles are detonated
electrically. Some warhead carry piezoelectric m aterial. This material will produce a DC field with varying tem p e r a t u r e c h a n g e s
as well as ap plied structural force. The warhead s t h a t u s e t h e m o p e r a t e l i k e t h i s : O n i m pact the piezom aterial is crushed
creating a DC field, like a charged capacitor. This in turn creates a flow of voltage through the deto nators circuit and detonates
t h e b o m b. Pretty neat idea. I'm wondering how m uch piezom ate rial costs (the m ilitary uses ceram ics) and if anyone knows
m ore about it. I'm defintely looking more into it.
PYRO 500
Moderator
Posts: 1466
From : s o m ewhere in florida
Registered: SEP 2000
piezoelectrics are use d everywhere, barbcue sparkers, those gold discs at radio shack that are like tiny speakers (piezoelectric
m aterials are transdu cers, both ways)and sonar panels, hum idifyiers, etc. they are everywhere
J
Moderator
Posts: 602
From : U n i t e d K i n g d o m
You could try one of those ele ctronic cig lighters. I've never take n the piezo m e c h a n i s m apart, but I'm sure som ething could
be made of it. You could try several crystals in one device.
------------------
"If the aquarium water has to be drunk don't waste the fish. In fact they'll probab ly be the easiest to eat even if you don't
need the water. The cat is next in the pot." - John 'Lofty' Wiseman
vehem t
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 580
From : C a n a d a
Get an aim a n d f l a m e (bbq lighter) fro m a dollar store or get the cheape st one you can from a hardware store. Ope n it up and
you will be rewarded with a nice durable(unlike the cigarette lighter units) piezo electric unit.
These suckers use quartz I believe.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2304
From : England
You won't be able to set off a regular electric ig nitor with a pieze gas lighter because the current is tiny. Maybe if you passed
t h e s p a r k t h r o u g h s o e m thing very sensitive to static like AP it would work . I know AP is sensitive to a spark from a s t u n g u n ,
I'll have to try with a pieze ignitor.
The Real
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 136
posted February 19, 2001 12:54 AM
I don't think quartz is used in this application though I know it is a piezom aterial. It's a ceram ic disk, not thin like a piezo
buzzers, that is crushed on im pact. The voltage is plenty with a lighter igniter but the current isn't there. The tim e o f
application probably isn't there either.
BTW the discs he said looked like donuts or cylinders, exact dim ensions were never given though, but from pics on the net I'm
g o n n a g u e s s t h e d i s c s a r e o v e r 1 " t h i c k a n d 1 - 3 " d i a m eter. I also think the am nt of wattage produced is directly proportiona l
to the force applies.
[This message has been edited by The Real (edited February 19, 2001).]
shooter2
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 56
From :
Registered: NOV 2000
About 30 years ago,I read that one of the materials used to fire Bazooka warheads was Glaubers Salt (SP?). W hich is
Am monium Nitrate. You have to grow large crystals of it, and after attach ing the leads you m ust give it a water proo f
covering(varnish?). Ahh... the versitile A.N.!
(Glauber's Salt in NOT amm onium nitrate, it's Sodium Sulphate (Na2SO4). I did a web search to see if I could find any
r e f e r e n c e t o s o d i u m s u l p h a t e b e i n g a p i e z o m aterial bu t found none. Probably means it isn't. NBK2000)
[ T h i s m e s s a g e h a s b e e n e d i t e d b y n b k 2 0 0 0 ( e dited February 19, 2001).]
vehem t
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 580
From : C a n a d a
I was reffering to the quartz content in the lighters ignitor.
Applying this technology to a "home m a d e " m issile/projectile doesnt seem too practical to o m e anyways. A mechanical or
electronic sensor system would seem much more practical.
The Real
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 136
In terms of weight I think the idea would be very practical, depending on cost of course. It would also m e a n l e s s c o m p o n e n t s
and in turn less chances for failures.
vehem t
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 580
From : C a n a d a
P r o b l e m is, the m a t e r i a l n e e d s t o b e m a c h i n e d rather p recisely, you will spend a LOT of tim e d e v e l o p i n g a w a y t o i m p l e m e n t
it, and will very likely not be cheap.
shooter2
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 56
From :
Registered: NOV 2000
n k b , O f course you are right. I'm suffe ring from info. over load. The correct m aterial is called R OCHELLE SALT. I think the
crystals are easy to grow from CREAM OF TARTAR. They m ust be m oisture proofed after attaching electrodes.
Mr C ool
Freq uent Poster
Posts: 991
From : None of your bloody business!
W hat's wrong with a battery and a push switch? It'd be SO much sim pler!
Yafmot May 21st, 20 08, 06:2 9 AM

P i e z o e l e m ents can consist of any of a num ber of different com p o u n d s . P i e z o K i n etics corp, once sent me a 3/8 X 1 " slug of
Lead Niobium Titanate to play with for a spark assisted diesel program . To test it, I replaced the spring in a cap pistol with a
m uch stiffer one, soldered som e l e a d s t o e a c h e n d o f t h e e l e m ent. and with a little cut-and-paste-to-fit, rigged a device that
would easily ignite ga soline vapor, and with a little heat even diesel vapor. and it would shock the piss out of you if you were in
the way. W e ran out of funding before we could m ake it work in the engine, but it was prom ising.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > 4barrel electricaly fired gizmo
Log in
View Full Version : 4barrel electricaly fired gizmo
smokey March 8th, 2003, 05:38 PM

heres another toy that has been built by a fellow reasercher
<a href="http://www.geocities.com /elm grove1765/project4/project4.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/
elm grove1765/project4/project4.htm l</a>
this may be legal in some states though i would advise you to check with you local law enforcemen t if you were to contemplate
building this device
I_am_the_Black_one March 13th, 2003, 03:20 AM

Nice... I like the AR-1 5 reciver does an y one know where to locate free plans for Semi-auto/autom atic weap ons i was thinking
of building a few Maybe when i get my post up a bit il staet a ne w thread
Any one with ideas ca n u plz email me at grantnrussell@yahoo.com . a u
I will be posting pictues of my elc det tear gas launcher soon as i get a d igital cam
Gargoylebrother April 8th, 2003, 06:59 AM

Hm m m m s e e m s like a very long tim e for the g un to fire .25sec to.3sec thats a lo ng tim e if you think about it have you though
of using anything other than the glow pluge suck as ma ybe two term i na l s i ns i de o f t he gun o pps i t e o f ea c h o t her s o th at you
can get a spark acrost them just like a combustion spud gun that way the spark will ignite the pyro dex or BP if used . T h e
p r o b l e m would be geting a HV spark and weath er or not if it will ignite the propelent but you could replace the triger switch with
a s m all pinzo ignitor wich would give you the spark and then just have your switch for each cham ber connected to it so all you
do is pull the triger fire one th en flip the switch. Also on another note it would be nice if yo u could m a k e o n e t h a t y o u d o n t
have to use a switch to change cham bers just pull trigger it fire then automatically switches to the next cham ber and all you do
is pull the triger a second tim e. this would probably be somewha t dificult and also m ake the project gun m uch bigger unless
y o u c a n u s e s o m e d a mn small electrical com ponets in it.
Ok well thats all i got to say dont me mad and my ideas i relaize that there kinda stupid and a little kewl but ohhhh well.
Anthony April 8th, 2003, 04:15 PM

T h a t g u n n e e d s a n i c d / n i m h pack to get the lock tim e down. .25 s is atrocious, you'd have to lead som eone running in front of
you!
C o m m o n p i e zo ignito rs will no t ignite BP etc
I_am_the_Black_one April 29th, 2003, 04:58 AM

I know its a bit KEWL but what about a bit of that wire that they put in toasters bu t two bits close and when they get voltage
they spark. I forget the name of the wire. And would you need h igher voltage to do this as they norm aly run of 240 volts....
Anthony April 29th, 2003, 03:37 PM

Nichrome wire.
T h e e l e m ents in toasters run on 240v because they are several feet long.
You would have to replace the wire for each shot, or build it into an extractable ca rtridge, m ore com plicated than a glowplug.
xyz April 30th, 2003, 10:17 PM

All you need to do is use a length of nichrom e that is lo ng enough to get red hot but not m elt thro ugh.
I h a v e a s m all (10m m cal.) BP cannon that is electrically fired, I use a peice of steel wool as an igniter and I supply enough
current to heat it up without m elting it. I have used it about 20 times and I have not yet needed to replace the steel wool.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > Let's outshine the sun
Log in
View Full Version : Let's outshine the sun
Polverone August 9th, 2002, 04:23 AM

I've been peripherally aware for a while that the shockwave from high explosives can heat noble gases to very high
temperatures to produce a brief, intense pulse of light. Only tonight did I start to search for further information. For such an
interesting phenomenon, there appears to be little information available online.
I extracted the following from a Usenet post that's a few years old. The original source for the text was a PDF at lanl.gov that
is no longer online.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />... The smaller the specific heat, the greater the temperature that can be reached for a given energy input. Xenon
is the best gas for reaching high temperatures, krypton is next best, and argon is appreciably poorer. On the other hand,
krypton and xenon are expensive, whereas argon, present to about 1% in air, is inexpensive. Most experiments to date have
been done with argon.
In argon, the temperature at the shock wave driven by a good solid high explosive is above 25,000 kelvins (K), and in xenon
above 36,000 K.
... The shocked gas emits light nearly as a perfect radiator: the pressure and density are so high that the usual atomic line
structure is broadened such that the lines merge and the spectrum is continuous. An argon shock wave is about 60 times
brighter than the Sun, and a xenon shock wave about 100 times brighter.<hr /></blockquote>I have searched the web and Usenet with Google and found little more relevant information.
Blinding weapons based on this principle are called "optical isotropic radiators" in a number of places. Other people mention
that det cord wrapped around a balloon of argon gas will exhibit this phenomenon, though they did not mention how intense
the phenomenon was. I've seen references in a few places to using multiple shock waves to achieve high compression/
radiation of the gas.
I was unable to find further information in the databases I have access to, but my school doesn't subscribe to a lot of
engineering/physics information. I've also run a few searches on the US patent database and didn't come up with anything
relevant.
I see a few possibilities here. The first is that inducing mega light pulses in noble gases is so simple that nobody writes about
it; you just detonate your brisant high explosive of choice in the chosen gas and BOOM - instant light. The second is that work
in this area is obscure and/or militarily significant so not a lot of details about techniques are available. The third is that there
simply hasn't been much experimentation in this area.
It's definitely an area that interests me in the abstract. Were I to obtain a cylinder of argon (an expensive proposition due to
cylinder costs) I would certainly be interested in experimenting. A cylindrical charge of PETN down the center of a polyethylene
soda bottle filled with argon? Look away from the explosion, of course...
I'd also be interested in proposals for merging shockwaves to maximize the light output of the gas. Does anybody have
further references?
nbk2000 August 9th, 2002, 05:55 AM

I believe that reason 2 (obscure AND militarily significant) is the reason why you can't find any info.
The isotropic radiator is being developed as a NLW to "temporarily" blind enemy troops. I put the word in quotes because it's
not likely to be that if you're close enough to it.
I believe it starts out with the gas already highly compressed, and then it's shocked with explosive to excite it enough to give
off light. I'd imagine some type of implosion, similiar to a muke design, is used to achieve the compression since I can't
imagine a "stick in tube" design providing enough compression. Unless, of course, it really is so simple that just wrapping
detcord around a ballon would do it.
If so, then small vials filled with xenon gas or such could be added into explosive devices to add a nice flash effect.
The closest I could find to relevant info was here:
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=light+emit+xenon+compression&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1" target="_blank">http:/

/www.google.com/search?q=light+emit+xenon+compression&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1</a>
This mostly brings up soniluminescence (sound to light), but (with some imagination) could be applied to explosives.
[ August 09, 2002, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
Mr Cool August 9th, 2002, 08:56 AM

I've seen a patent - I think it might be in the appropriate section here - that uses a HE-induced argon flash to pump a dye/
ruby laser, for use as a blinding weapon. IIRC they used 3g of PBX (>= 5kJ/g) and argon at 1atm, but I'd need to check to
be sure.
I'm not sure if it'd work with an implosion design. Sure, you'd get a lot of light, but would the detonation products and regions
of different density interfere with it too much?
I'm thinking of a shaped-charge like device, but with no liner, or a hemispherical cavity in a charge. The cavity is filled with
argon at the required pressure, and when detonated it is compressed from everywhere except the front. The gas is heated to
incandescence, and the light has a clear path away from the detonation.
PrimoPyro August 9th, 2002, 02:01 PM

Couldn't the same thing be accomplished by pumping the same amount of energy in the form of electric discharge into the
gas, like a laser exploits for example?
The principle, I think anyways, is derived from the atoms becoming so raidantly energetic that the electrons jump to higher
states to absorb the energy. As collisions occur between gas atoms, these electrons cascade back down to their ground states,
falling through the orbitals, and releasing photonic energy energy that is a direct function of frequency is related to the energy
drop from orbital to orbital. Since the electrons of various atoms are likely to be in several different energy states, you get
several (probably thousands) photon frequencies, which is of course percieved as white light. The extreme intensity would
come from more gas being subjected to this, or "further subjection" of the gas to the effect.
What I mean is you could either
a)use a bigger explosive and more gas (i.e. a bigger device) to get a bigger/brighter effect, or
b)Have a more efficient design, allowing more absorption of thermal and kinetic energy in the same amount of time before
collisions react to transform the energy into photons. Personally, I dont think b actually works this way, I think the effect of
this would be higher energy photons, not more of them.
The easiest way to get more light is to use more gas, and just compress it.
So I wonder, if a huge leyden jar-like capacitor of a few hundred farads, maybe a kilofarad or two, could accomplish the same
effect? Like those lightning balls again heh. The center electrode would be the hot wire, and the spherical orb around it would
be the ground electrode. The space between would be filled with compressed noble gas. Zap! Boom!
PrimoPyro
PYRO500 August 9th, 2002, 03:16 PM

A few hundred farads! At high voltage! In a leyden jar! I don't think so, for a leyden jar to store a farad at just say 10KV you'd
have a jar the size of a small town! They aren't really designed for peak power storage or anything that stores massive
amounts of energy.
Even pulse capacitors (with decent ESR and hookups) would have to be the size of many rooms to do that. And after all that
you'd need a few hydrogen thyristors triggered by IR lasers to control that electricity.
I think a better use it to use the extreme energy to pump a masive "super laser" although COIL lasers are looking more and
more practical these days.
The problem I see with the nobel gas plasma giving off light is that it uis not going to be coherent or monochromatic (most
likely) instead you have something like a xenon discharge into the air witch wastes a whole lot or radiation across the
spectrum some wavelengths will penetrate the air beter and some will be stopped by it. with a massive explosive driven
flashlamp driving a very large Nd:YAG or even better synthetic ruby laser tube you could create a very powerful discharge that's
likely to very rapidly things on contact with the beam at fairly far ranges if you can keep the beam coherent.
Mr Cool August 9th, 2002, 03:54 PM

PrimoPyro: "Couldn't the same thing be accomplished by pumping the same amount of energy in the form of electric
discharge into the gas, like a laser exploits for example?" - of course it could, haven't you ever seen a camera flash?!
COIL - chemical oxygen/iodine laser, right? I never understood how they got these to work. It is my understanding that it
reacts atomic oxygen with iodine vapour to cause the population inversion required for lasing. BUT, how do they keep the
atomic oxygen atomic?! I've seen a demo (in fact, the same demo is shown on a site which I think I got to from a link here
somewhere...) where chlorine is passed through 30% H2O2 to produce atomic oxygen, which very soon recombines and causes
a deep red chemiluminescence. I don't know how they stop it from doing this for long enough to get it into the lasing cavity?
If using a HE argon flash to pump a laser, I think a dye laser emitting in the [rough guess] green [/rough guess] area would
probably have absorbtion characteristics best suited to a radiator at 35K*K. A lot of light will be given off in UV->blue, but
Nd:YAG is best pumped by red/near IR, and ruby by green wavelengths I think.
Polverone August 9th, 2002, 04:19 PM

You know, the reason I like this idea is because it *is* so uncomplicated. Pumping a laser rod with the flash may be a good
idea, but am I going to recover the rod afterward? I might, if the charge were small enough, but then what's the point of using
explosive pumping? It's not as if I need a system that's battlefield-ready. Shocking some argon seems to be straightforward
and inexpensive enough that it might actually be done by a forumite, instead of just speculated about.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I'm thinking of a shaped-charge like device, but with no liner, or a hemispherical cavity in a charge. The cavity is
filled with argon at the required pressure, and when detonated it is compressed from everywhere except the front. The gas is
heated to incandescence, and the light has a clear path away from the detonation.<hr /></blockquote>I rather like that idea. But I just realized something that had been nagging at me. The
mysterious disappeared PDF that I quoted said that with argon you could achieve 60x the sun's brightness, and with xenon
100x (I wonder what radon would give you :D .) But they don't state at what distance from the explosion this brightness is
measured! The sun is so distant that the relatively small movements possible on the earth's surface don't really matter, as far
as changing brightness; the sun isn't appreciably brighter at 2000 meters than at sea level. But for nearer light sources, the
inverse square law really matters.
PYRO500 August 9th, 2002, 06:22 PM

You know, on my little internet quest to find more information on he net I happened to find a pdf not only mentioning the
name of the device you mentioned but a whole taxonomic table of all the classifications of future weapons for the military. this
is the first file I have actually come across that mentions the curdler unit and other things included in nbk's first pdf. I think
this table is one to save. <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/nld4/fenton.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/nld4/
fenton.pdf</a>
xoo1246 August 9th, 2002, 06:29 PM

I posted a patent number a while ago discussing an explosively pumped laser, well, here it is again.
#5,052,011
Energy84 August 9th, 2002, 06:55 PM
Aren't computer monitors/tv's picture tubes full of argon? I can't remember and am too damn lazy to check, but if that's the
case, couldn't you just make a BIG charge of ANFO or something (ANFO would be the cheapest bulk explosive I believe),
enough to completely surround the monitor or tv and just detonate that?
nbk2000 August 9th, 2002, 07:07 PM

The topic isn't lasers, rather explosively pumped flashbulbs (for want of a simplier analogy).
If the gas was contained in an optically resonant cavity (ala laser) that might be the difference between a flash and a gas.
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
It still seems to me that implosion would be the key to compressing and heating the gas to an incandescent state.
kingspaz August 9th, 2002, 07:35 PM

it all depends how much light would be absorbed by the explosion....when i think about it its unlikely not much will be. it would
be insignificant i think.
also i think so long as the explosive isn't very smokey then it should work fine. TNT and other very oxygen deficient
explosives would produce alot of smoke absorbing a fair bit of light.
[ August 09, 2002, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: kingspaz ]
xoo1246 August 10th, 2002, 08:22 AM

Ok, you don't want lasers, then this is an interesting patent, to kill/confuse the optical system of missiles. Basicly a ballon that
inflates with noble gases, then a charge detonates inside the ballon.
Creating a nice little flash.
#6,324,955 (Explosive countermeasure device)
Here is an images taken from the patent on the inflated ballon before it detonates(I added some descriptions). For those who
can't view full page patents.
<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Flash.jpg" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Flash.jpg</a>
Don't know what pressure the ballon had before it detonated.
Edit: Try filling a condom(transparant) with aragon, but before you fill it, add a detonator(electrical) containg an apropriate
amount of primary. Detonate(don't look at it).
Or better use a container such as a plastic bottle that can withstand a little higher pressure(fitted with valve, makes it a bit
more complex ).
It might be as simple as it seems(ofcourse you get lower light-output), why not try it?
[ August 10, 2002, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]
Anthony August 10th, 2002, 02:49 PM

You can buy 1kg dispossable argon bottles for little MIG welders, few quid a pop and pressurised to over 100bar IIRC.
I wonder if it would work to just stand one upright in a bucket of ANFO, probably with the top uncovered if the gas needs a "way
out"?
xoo1246 August 10th, 2002, 04:52 PM

It could work and there is only one way to test it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
I'm working on a pressurised(with argon an a little CO2) plastic bottle. Maybe I'll try it with a detcap.
nbk2000 August 10th, 2002, 05:26 PM

I wonder if a Xenon Halide compound would be more effective than the plain gas?

Too expensive for a start! And you'll have the bulky halogen taking energy away from the xenon. Hmm.. although this
wouldn't be too significant if you used the flouride, which is probably the easiest to form anyway. What's the AM of xenon,
60ish? Fuck knows. Anyway, I think it'd be too expensive.
But hey, if you're using a compound get HE and noble gas in one and go for xenon trioxide!
Anthony: do they have those in B&Q (for example), or only specialist welding shops? Not only could I use the argon for this
and other stuff, if they're cheap then I could get one and use the case for stuff too, e.g. cannons, crucibles (I'm tired of
porcelain, I always crack it :(, plus these could be made to have a narrow opening, to keep air out, as is required for making
CaC2, CaNCN, NaCN etc) and whatever else I think of. Perhaps I'll go and have a look...
Another thing to think about: do you think it might help if you mixed in a bit of C2H2/O2 mixture into the noble gas, to give it
an extra boost? Or would this soak up too much energy from the shock wave of the HE?
kingspaz August 10th, 2002, 07:46 PM

i think the addition of C2H2 and O2 would help considerably. when C2H2 burns its very bright and hot so, when mixed with the
noble gas being used it would be in direct contact so transfer energy better. not proper direct contact like in solids but if an
implosion device was used the lot would be crushed to a very high temperature, denisity (better energy transfer) and pressure.
xoo1246 August 11th, 2002, 07:45 AM

I read in a patent that explosives that produce alot of water reduce the light output.
nbk2000 August 11th, 2002, 10:27 AM

Perhaps an explosive gas like Hydrazoic acid instead? This explodes at higher velocity than methane possibly could.
Assuming you actually can get a decent isotropic radiation effect, what would you use it for?
I'm thinking one good use would be to flash blind/destroy NVDs, such as sniper scopes or googles. The newest generation
have ABC (Automatic Balance Control) that allow them to run even in daylight, but I don't think they'd react fast enough to
protect the tube from an Iso flash since this is in the microsecond range, and much greater intensity than the sun
(apparently).
Perhaps a specific ratio of an inert gas (Xe/Ar/whatever) with another gas/chemical could shift the flash from full spectrum to
primarily IR. This way it won't affect unaided night vision (your eyes), but destroy your enemies NVD advantage. That, and it'd
greatly conceal the source of the damage since their equipment would burn out in an instant, but they'd only hear a Boom!,
but see nothing. :D
Then, once they're relying on eyes, you flashblind them with a fully visible Iso bomb to blind them while you cover your eyes.
Now they're totally blinded while you can now use YOUR NVD with impunity. <img src="http://www.roguesci.org/ubb/icons/
icon23.gif" alt=" - " />
Even more hi-tech would be to couple the Iso to an electro-optic LCD shutter that'd engage for only a second while the Iso is
flashing the enemy (full spectrum), disrupting all their vision/optics, while protecting your eyes/NVD. The shutter is coupled to
the RC det that controls the Iso's.
Speaking of radiation, a 1% solution of Triethyl aluminum (TEA) in n-Hexane, when dispersed and ignited in air by an
explosion, burns with such intense heat that it causes 3rd degree burns from infrared heating, with no direct contact with the
deflagerating TEA. Nukes are the only other weapons capable of that. It also burns with a blinding white light, similar to a
magnesium flare, that'd burn out, or at least shut down, any NVDs in the immediate area.
[ August 11, 2002, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
Anthony August 11th, 2002, 11:39 AM

I'm 99% sure I've seen them in B&Q, the range consists of pure CO2, CO2+argon and pure argon, if B&Q don't stock one of
these it's probably the pure argon. Machine Mart definitely do them. Not sure about the price though, especially in B&Q (it's a
distant memory :) ).
One thing that occurs to me is, I presume that a device like this would be tested at night? If so, how can we be sure it has
worked (to a degree) considering that the explosive itself will produce a bright flash?
nbk2000 August 11th, 2002, 12:03 PM

Photography light meters. :)
Or, you can make a simple meter from a photovoltaic cell from Rat-Shack and use that.
Then, simply explode two similar devices, one with, and one without, the gas filling. Compare the light output.
However, because of the extremely short duration, you may have to use filmstrips covered with variable density tint to
determine which one is brighter. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />
xoo1246 August 12th, 2002, 03:19 PM

I'm planning to detonate a 2 gram HMTD B.C. in a 1.5 liter plastic bottle pressurised(I can't tell what the pressure is) with gas
used in welding (argon/CO2) to see if there is any noticable effect at all. Hopefully I will get around to assemble it soon. The
bottle is ready and I have the cap filled, need to assemble the ignition device.
I have tested to discharge 300 volts through a iron filament(explodes) in the bottle filled with gas to see if there was any
difference in light output between that and in air. But no.
What do you think?
Edit: Here is an image of the bottle with bike-wheel valve. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Bottle01.jpg" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/
Bottle01.jpg</a>
[ August 12, 2002, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]
nbk2000 August 12th, 2002, 11:34 PM

Filter out the CO2 first by passing the gas through lye water.
nbk2000 August 13th, 2002, 10:47 AM

Here's a picture I found in a LANL PDF about criticality experiments.
<img src="http://server3001.freeyellow.com/nbk2000/xenon2.jpg" alt=" - " />
The xenon gas in the plexiglass chamber is going from 1 Atm (~15psi), to 140kbar (I don't know what that is in Atm, but I'm
sure it's a lot) in 10 microseconds under magnetic flux collapse. This causes the xenon to do its thing (flash) as the
shockwave (adibatic compression) travels through it.
[ October 19, 2002, 02:58 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
xoo1246 August 13th, 2002, 01:04 PM

Remove
[ December 11, 2002, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: xoo1246 ]
nbk2000 August 13th, 2002, 02:26 PM

How hard is it to pass a gas through water? :confused:
ANywyas, the thermite mix you mentioned ISN'T suitable since it's the compression of the gas that causes the effect. And, in
order to compress to sufficient pressure for it to flash, you need a very fast and brisant explosive. ANFO wouldn't (likely) do it,
so certainly not something that's not much faster than gunpowder.
Though it might be useful as an anti-electronics explosive. (?)
zaibatsu August 13th, 2002, 02:37 PM

140Kbar = ~138200ATM or over 2,000,000 PSI! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
xoo1246 August 13th, 2002, 05:28 PM

Remove

There is NO WAY that an Al/CuO mixture could raise the gas to 20,000+*K!! It would probably burn at only 1/10th of that
temperature, and since it isn't a brisant explosive the shockwave won't manage it.
This is something I have wanted to do for a while, but have never done so because I was unaware of the availability of argon
at B&Q! If the price is right I might pick up a cylinder next time I'm there, but I won't be able to try a big device, and I won't
be able to show you anything except before and after pics <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />
xoo1246 August 13th, 2002, 08:50 PM

Remove
nbk2000 August 13th, 2002, 11:15 PM

I think you're risking failure by allowing the CO2 to remain mixed in with your argon.
xoo1246 August 14th, 2002, 06:50 AM

You think so? It's very possible, but I will give it a try, and in the next test I could use somewhat pure argon.

xoo1246: The first post indicates that these things work at 25,000*K with argon.
I think the best explosive would be pure, high density RDX or PETN. No Al or other additives as these lower brisance.
xoo1246 August 14th, 2002, 07:21 AM

Ok, my fault.
The conclusions are, use pure noble gases at high pressure, chock it with a explosive that has a high brisance to get the
maximum intensity? So this has actually little to with temperature of explosion then, since it's not hight enough but the
compression that the shockwave performs on the gas generates the high temperature.
Stupid me...
But the question remains, could an explosive with much lower vod be used to produce an useable(what is that?) flash?
NBK, what I meant with that CuO/Al explosive used as an anti-electronics device was that possibly the copper particles would
allow current to go from say the power lines to the ground.

I think most HE's would produce some light output, although with ANFO etc it might be an insignificant amount. You could
probably get away with ANNM, but this is all just speculation. Just use the HE with the highest VoD that you can.
Hopefully I'll be going to check the prices of argon cylinders tonight, so I might be able to do some small tests soon. Do you
think a 250mL pop bottle could be pressurised by turning the argon cylinder upside down, and squirting in a small amount of
liquid argon and then sealing it? It'd be purged of air first, so that it only contains argon, but do you think the cold would
weaken the bottle and make it crack or anything? This is one thing I'll try.
Camera flash tubes only use about 5J of energy in the flash cap, even if the HE method was 1/100th of their efficiency you
could get a similar light output with about 0.1g of HE! What do you think, is that a reasonable conservative estimate of
efficiency?
Also, I may be able to video my tests by borrowing a friend's camera, do you think it would damage the electronics in anyway,
assuming the flash was a few times brighter than a camera's? I'm just worried about the very short duration = very high peak
power...
Arkangel August 14th, 2002, 11:36 AM
For stills, how about a camera that you can hold the aperture open, sat behind the glass from a welders mask? That way you
it's not going to pick up any ambient light, and as long as it's never pointed at the sun, you'll just get the image of the flash/
explosion.
(Really interesting thread though Polverone, thanks for starting it)
[ August 14, 2002, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Arkangel ]

That should work, but I don't have a suitable camera :(
If I can't get any video footage I'll draw an artist's impression of it in MS Paint :)
Anthony August 14th, 2002, 01:49 PM

Maybe point the camera at some nearby trees or other screen for the first shot? So that the camera sees the lighting effect of
the flash rather than the flash directly.
The critical temperature for argon is -122*C, so I doubt that it's going to be liquified in the bottle :)
Eliteforum August 14th, 2002, 02:09 PM

Maybe of pointless information, but argon has is pumped in between double glazed windows.
xoo1246 August 14th, 2002, 04:07 PM

Remove
pyromaniac_guy August 14th, 2002, 11:18 PM

i dont think you have to worry about the pressure of the gas being shocked, for example, flashlamps used for pumping lasers
would have a pressure measued in a few torr, and small volumes.. the active volume of a 25 kj rated flashlamp is <100
ml.... a 2l pop bottle should be much more than sufficent, even at STP [if you have never seen a 25 kj strobe go off, it is
awsomely bright... standing in a 2000 sq ft or so room, with my back the the flashlamp [eyes open] still gave me an
afterimage akin to staring at the sun for a long period of time.]
i would say use only a noble gas, up the explosive content, and use whatever has the fastest Vdet you can get your hands
on...
Also, for those who suggested to use this phenomina to pump a solid state laser, most mediums such as nd yag or yag, and
ruby have a top end energy storage of a few j per ml of volume. if you use a generous 5kj per liter as energy storage density,
you can extract assuming 100% efficeny 5kj of laser pulse for every liter of medium you have... since not even the best
system can extract all of the sotred energy, lets say maybe 2.5kj per liter... now the fun part. a laser rod a liter in volume
would probably cost on the order of a new nissan maxima if the host was the least expensive nd:glass you could find. if it was
YAG or ruby, you would have your choice of buying the rod or a new lamborghini... and since you are explosivly pumping the
gaim medium, it's an awfull expensive one shot laser!!! FYI it takes about 60j of energy from a burst mode laser to vaporize a
cubic millimeter of steel... 2.5 kj isnt going to do a whole heck of alot of damage!
[ August 14, 2002, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: pyromaniac_guy ]
Polverone August 15th, 2002, 12:43 AM

I am not very surprised that the mix with 23% CO2 failed. CO2 decomposition is strongly endothermic, and CO decomposition
even more so; I would expect that both are going to happen in the target temperature range. The whole point of using the
noble gases is that they don't dissipate energy by breaking molecular bonds; they have no molecular bonds to break.
Nevertheless, I salute this first experimental attempt.
As far as the CuO/Al thermite that was mentioned upthread... After reading that message in alt.engr.explosives that was
quoted, I had to try the mixture for myself. I made two charges of CuO/Al in stoichiometric proportions with very fine ceramics
CuO and 300 mesh Al. The first was ignited at night; it burned in a fraction of a second with a hearty "whump!" and sent
glowing slag (from the igniter charge) about 10 meters into the air. The second charge was initiated in the daytime with HMTD.
It gave a respectable (not huge) explosion and a thick cloud of brown smoke, which I'm guessing was colored from copper
vapor. I imagine this wouldn't be very healthy for electrical equipment, especially high-voltage electrical equipment.
xoo1246 August 15th, 2002, 06:24 AM

Remove
nbk2000 August 15th, 2002, 09:23 AM

Told you so. :p
Just some ideas for next time:
Cover half of the bottle with aluminum foil, with the shiny side facing inwards, to act as a reflector to direct most of the flash
towards wherever you're watching it from. This will increase the probability of your detecting a flash, and may even amplify the
effect by redirecting the UV/IR back into the reaction ala' laser.
Use a stronger plastic bottle to increase the pressure before rupture. The more compressed the gas is before being shocked,
the more dense it is, and the greater the compression from the shock.
Those 5 gallon water cooler jugs come to mind. Or the smaller ones if you're conserving the gas.
An HE core that runs the WHOLE length of the container, and is initiated from the center (as per the patent) and NOT from the
end. This way all the explosive is consumed in half the time as end initiation and thereby doubles the shock impulse. :)
xoo1246 August 15th, 2002, 05:11 PM

Remove

You could theoretically use the intense light pulse to set off other explosives with a high degree of synchronization. I have a
PDF around here somewhere about explosives that can be initiated with light. Some of them are actually fairly normal primary
explosives, IIRC. Now I'm not sure exactly why you would need to set off multiple charges with precision synchronization but
I'm sure people can come up with some good reasons.
Oh, and even though it's off-topic, I'll answer your query: the CuO that I obtained was already a very fine powder. It may have
already been through a ball mill, since that's how many ceramics materials are ground. The night time charge was about 30 g
and the day time charge was about 50 g. 3 g of Al/S igniter mixture set off the first charge, 2 g of HMTD set off the second.
rjche August 15th, 2002, 09:41 PM

The balloon patent stated an explosive inside a balloon filled with certain rare gasses would work.
The pressure inside a balloon is just a tad greater than atmospheric pressure at its location. Upstairs that pressure may be
quite low.
Also the pressure generated by a high explosive is in the millions of psi at the explosive surface. that pressure decreases as
the volume increases. Pressure drops as radius cubed. IF the explosive is 1 inch diameter, then at a distance of 1 inch from
the surface, pressure is down to an eighth of what it started out to be.
Thus whatever is near it is going to be raised to high pressure, and that pressure will drop but still be quite high at a distance
of 1 foot.
(a 12 gage empty shotgun shell full of 75% dynamite broke concrete building blocks a foot from it in air). It would set off
other dynamite within about 6 inches (air) of it, or several feet of water or wet dirt. Ditching dynamite (90%) would propagate
hole to hole about 6 ft apart in wet soil. Only has to prime the end hole. The others followed
down the ditch line to the end. See any blaster's handbook.
A gas would achieve hundreds thousands of psi in a balloon a foot in diameter, with say ten grams of AP held in its center on
a stick through its neck, and that stick used to seal the neck after gas was used to blow the balloon to size.
the wires to fire the ap could come out the stick (or pvc tubing).
To tell how bright it got, fire it behind a barrier at night and see how brightly it lights up distant hills etc.
Also take a photo of distant hills, with time exposure opened just before firing and closed after. Do two, one with explosion
and one without, to check for residual time exposure contrast from night lighting. Then compare the photo of distant hills with
a sunlight shot.
If it makes sunlight type illumination at a hundred yards

the light was 4 suns at 50 yards, and 16 suns at 25 yards.
for a night adapted eye that will cause prolonged night blindness.
Course a million CP hand held spotlight in the eyes of a nighttime intruder will do a good job also.
Would be good for lighting up door busters who like to use bright flashlights to defeat any NV goggles in use. Don't use NV,
use a much bigger light than they got.
Ordinary photographic flash powder is also great. That's all a flash bang grenade is.
The amount of eye desensitizing is related to the total power not so much its peak intensity. It's a chemical bleaching
problem, depends on total energy absorbed.
Thus a million CP for a second could do more than a hundred thousand CP (non directional burst) that lasts only
microseconds.
To see what even a hundred CP can do, with night adapted eyes, flick on the dark room's flourescent lights for 5 seconds then
off, and see if you can see anything in the room that you could see before you did that.
Time how long it takes to regain your adaption.
Another factor screwing you up will be the eyes will retain the image of what they were looking at during the bright flash, after
they are back in the dark again. That takes several seconds to dissipate. Helps speed it up by moving your eyeballs back and
forth. Its a chemical problem, and movement hastens flushing out the bleached chemicals.
One can open adapted eyes in a dark room, and fire a photoflash or one of the older flash bulbs, and after its dark again see
the room all lit up from the stored image, by holding the eyes from moving. Most can look at the image for about half a
minute, and see details he didn't see while the flash lasted. Move the eyeballs and it goes away, but comes back several
times, each time a bit dimmer.
Of all the methods, I believe flash powder would be the most practical, if you only wanted temporary incapacitation.
The power of a laser is because it can put several milliwatts into the pupil of the eye if it can hit that small target.
To do that with a non focused light source takes mucho power. You can calculate it. Total power of the light, spread over the
size of its spot gives so many watts per square millimeter of area at whatever distance you measure the spot size.
The night eye pupil is 7 mm diameter. Area is about 150 sq mm.
If a spotlight at 25 yards is a meter diameter
That's about 3 million square mm area.
The power of the light is say 12 volts at 5 amps or 60 watts.
Efficiency is about 10 % so the light output is about 6 watts.
6 watts spread ovewr 3 million sq mm gives 1.2 E-5 watts per sq mm
or 12 microwatts per sq.
Bright noonday sunlight (no smog) puts 1 mw per sq mm. on the earth surface. That's 1000 microwatts per sq mm.
Looking directly at that causes permanent eye damage, and serious temporary blindness, especially if you go into a dark area
right after doing that.
So, the lamp example above is about a tenth as serious as looking at the sun.
one only looks at the sun for about a tenth second before the eyes automatically shut.
So a 1 second look at the spotlight could cause the same degree of blindness as a look at the sun.
It would not however boil a spot of the retina in a quarter second or so, as the tenfold more powerful focused spot of the sun
would. But it could do some damage.
Sure would make one unable to see at night for a spell.
I recall a light weapon from the 60's that used a flashbulb in a small reflector that was to be put about 3 ft or closer to one's
face and fired, as a nightime get away device.
nbk2000 August 15th, 2002, 11:29 PM

Not all ballons are like the rubber ones you buy at the toy store. A ballon made of suitable polymeric film can retain hundreds
of PSI of pressure.
The inverse square rule applies to light sources. Being 2x as far = 1/4 the light intensity, 3x = 1/9, etc. BUT, the apparent size
of the light source has a great bearing on the effectiveness in destroying night vision.
A bright light that appears as a point source in the distance isn't going to do squat. But, a bright flash that lights up the entire
field of view will cause total disruption.
If the ballon was made in the shape of a disc, rather than a sphere, than you could maintain a constant explosive pressure
against the gas, rather than have the decrease in pressure as the shockwave expanded in a spherical manner, since the disc
is of a constant thickness across its entire area, relative to the explosive.
A disc ballon is made, with one side being covered with a sheet explosive like det-flex, the other side being clear. The
explosive is detonated in the center, and as the explosion radiates outwards towards the edge, it causes an ever-increasing
ring of light to be created as the noble gas is compressed into radiating.
This would also extend the length of the flash from microseconds to milliseconds. Might not make a difference, but it may...
So, instead of a spike of light, with a rapid decay (with the sphere), you'd get a rapid build up with a sudden cutoff at maximal
intensity (disc).
Exploding an Iso against a dark background (like a tree line) wouldn't be nearly as effective as a light background (like white
painted walls). Just using foil or mylar mirroring would greatly increase effectiveness by reflecting otherwise lost light energy
back to the target.
As for now, since xoo is trying for proof of concept, it's better to brute force the flash with overkill to get SOME result, rather
that to finesse it and fail. Polishing the device to optimize results can come later, after you get the "first light" to encourage
further testing.
xoo1246 August 16th, 2002, 06:48 AM

Remove
xoo1246 August 18th, 2002, 11:12 AM

Remove
nbk2000 August 18th, 2002, 11:52 AM

If by center you're referring to the spherical ISO, then you could use the "straw slightly larger than my detonator" trick. Just
find a soda straw slightly larger than your detonator, cast/pack your explosive around the straw (the end being in the middle
of your charge), and insert you detonator when ready.
Not that hard.
Don't worry about photos. Just look for a bright flash lighting up the surroundings at night. While looking away, of course. :)
Once you've removed the CO2, you'll also have to remove the water vapor. That'll absorb energy by conversion to steam.
Passing the purified argon gas through oven-dried silica gel should do nicely.
xoo1246 August 18th, 2002, 03:27 PM

Remove
rikkitikkitavi August 18th, 2002, 06:28 PM

not if is only a few litres of gas(@ NTP) bubbled through, the high heat capacity of the water prevents any large temperature
rise.
There is however two good reason for using a chilled lye-solution
1) gas-liquid reaction is normally speeded with colder liquid due to most gases increase solubility in colder liquid, thus the CO2
is more easily absorbed
2) the vapour pressure (Pwater) of a colder solution is lower than a warmer. And the concentration of water in the gas is
Pwater/Ptot regardless of total pressure. So at 1 atm it is about 10/760(you have to look up in a table for the exact value)
You could try to run the CO2-free gas through a PVCtube in a freezer , so most of the vapour condenses ( I assume you dont
have a cold-trap and LN2 :) to further dry it. Unless you use a chemical absorbant of course
/rickard
[ August 18, 2002, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: rikkitikkitavi ]
Xtramad August 19th, 2002, 09:21 AM

There are a lot of explosive replies to your question, but it dosn't have to be that dramatic. Soniluminescence is the easiest
solution and it has been shown to work in laboratory tests. Hydrogen bubbles have been hydrosonically imploded (cavitation)
creating heat and light (1 million degrees centigrade if I remember correctly) for some nanoseconds. The frequency used was
25MHz I think. The shockwaves from the reaction where dissipated in the test jar so only small amounts of energy where
produced. I can't help but think that if these shockwaves where used to feed more such reactions the process might be self
supporting.
But anyway, if your interested try searching for:

Zero point energy
Zero point gravity
Soniluminescence
Cavitation
Implosion
Or try these links:

<a href="http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html" target="_blank">http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html</a>
<a href="http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic/ceticrav.txt" target="_blank">http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/skeptic/
ceticrav.txt</a>
<a href="http://www.padrak.com/ine/db/DEVICES.html" target="_blank">http://www.padrak.com/ine/db/DEVICES.html</a>
<a href="http://www.und.ac.za/und/prg/sonochem/ultraphy.html" target="_blank">http://www.und.ac.za/und/prg/sonochem/
ultraphy.html</a>
nbk2000 August 19th, 2002, 11:19 AM

Soniluminance ism't going to work.
The energy conversion from sound, to mechanical implosion, to luminance is pathetic. You pump in thousands of watts of
power and get a barely visible microbubble of faint light.
Explosive pumping of xenon would be infinitely more efficent.
RTPB:
KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
Xtramad August 19th, 2002, 04:00 PM

Did you wonder where the first post went? I deleted it, and after this one the same will happen to you. DO NOT DISRESPECT
THE MODS, ESPECIALLY ADMINS LIKE NBK!
[ August 19, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: zaibatsu ]
xoo1246 August 24th, 2002, 06:41 PM

Ok, some progress, but moving slow.
<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Iso01.jpg" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Iso01.jpg</
a>
<a href="http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Iso02.jpg" target="_blank">http://w1.478.telia.com/~u47802930/Iso02.jpg</
a>
A bigger container could be used, but I'm having problem finding any suitable(thick walled enough, portable, transparent,
cheap, etc.), or possibly I'm not looking hard enough.
Have to find a better cork that can be fitted with a valve without leaking, and finish the washing bottle and a second bottle
filled with something to absorb moisture. How would a layer of prilled and dried AN work for water absorbtion? Good enough is
my guess.

Ammonium nitrate might work. Dry calcium chloride or oxide would probably be better. One thing that just occurred to me: can
you test the "goodness" of the purified gas by firing a spark through it? Okay, maybe you don't have any high voltage
equipment around. But I would think that brighter sparks from electricity would be indicative of more light from shock heating,
since in each case you're going to have a better peak temperature with a purer noble gas. Even disposable cameras make a
pretty good flash with just a little bit of xenon and a modest capacitor. Hmm, starting to wonder what you could do with a big
cap bank and a homemade giant flash tube...
Spudgunner September 13th, 2002, 09:00 PM

A line and a half is the longest sentance you have ever written? Are you under 12? Or is it that English isn't your native
language and you have never written that long of a sentance in English?
Anyway, setting them off at the same time shouldn't be THAT hard, just use the EXACT same length (and gauge) of wire to
your caps, make the caps the EXACT same each time. Or, use exactly equal lengths of det cord, thus the electricity (or the
shockwave) will get there at the exact same time as they have to travel the exact same distance.
Spud
Anthony September 15th, 2002, 08:00 PM

I don't see why you'd use shaped charges as there is nothing that the liner needs to penetrate. It would be better to just use
the monroe effect of the colliding shockwaves.
nbk2000 October 20th, 2002, 08:08 AM

Well, after further researching, I've found some interesting tidbits.
Firstly, argon isn't the only gas that can be used. Any mono or diatomic gas can be used. The higher the molecular weight
and/or pressure, the better the flash.
Helium, argon, xenon, hydrogen, neon, krypton, and even plain old air (nitrogen) will work.
The gas will emit whatever spectra it would if energized in an electric tube, like a neon light. So, xenon would be blue-white,
neon red-orange, etc.
The munroe effect can be used to amplify the intensity of light emitted because of the highly concentrated shockwave it emits.
The important thing is that there be no liner and the cone is itself filled with the desired gas.
The duration of the flash depends on the distance the shockwave has to travel from the explosive to the casing, at which time
it ruptures the container and ends the flash effect. The further away the tranparent casing is from the charge, the longer the
flash effect.
Any decent HE will work, such as TNT or Picric Acid, so you don't have to have RDX or HMX to make it work (though bigger is
always better <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ).
I've come up with an idea that might allow for very long flash time, relative to current devices.
Rather than a spherical charge, use a tubular charge. Imagine a hollow tube (like a straw) with a very high length to diameter
ratio. Something like 5 feet long to 1 inch around (for instance). The entire inner surface of the tube is lined with a sheet
explosive for its entire length.
The tube is filled with argon or such under very high pressure, with one end capped with a detonator assembly with a
waveformer to cause the explosive shockwave to travel the entire length of the tube at an equal rate, like a ring, to the
opposite end which is capped with a clear window for the light to escape.
As the shockwave travels down the tube, it implodes towards the center, compressing the gas into luminensce. Also, as the
shockwave races towards the end, it compresses the gas that way too, increasing the pressure even more.
You don't have to worry about any gas escaping out the blown end because the shockwave has something like 10,000,000 PSI
of pressure, MORE than enough to retain the argon in place for the few thousandths of a second the device will exist. :)
So, instead of a flash duration of 1/1,000,000th of a second, you could get (assuming 7,000m/s explosive velocity at 2 meter
length) have 1/3,500th of a second duration.
It might even be possible to build this in a laser configuration using helium-neon or such, line with a highly reflective liner
material like silver, with a 98% mirror instead of a clear widow. Explosively pump the gas into lasing and direct as needed.
Given the insanely high energy levels decent explosive liberate in microseconds, you could get, even with crappy conversion
rates of 1%, several watts of laser energy. A few watts doesn't sound like much, but 5 watts of IR energy will burn through
steel plate. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
Direct a beam of visible laser light at a gathering of people at night from miles away, and you could likely blind them, if not
permanently, then at least temporarily.
Because of the distance, you'd be well outside of any security perimeter, thus politicial rallies, celebrity gatherings (oscars?),
sporting events...all present high profile target opportunities.
Or, blind the cockpit crew of an airliner as they're landing. Crash and burn baby! Who needs boxcutters when you've got a HE
pumped pulse laser? :p
[ October 20, 2002, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: nbk2000 ]
vulture October 20th, 2002, 11:51 AM

I'm afraid nitrogen gas won't work, as ionizing N2 requires breaking the triple bond which requires an energy of
about 800kJ/mole and that's a shitload of energy, there will almost be no light emitted. This goes for all diatomic gasses,
although N2 has a somewhat extreme enthalpy.
It's not because noble gasses are inert and N2 is also inert to most chemicals that they show the same
ionisation behaviour.
This depends largely on valence and binding properties.
nbk2000 October 20th, 2002, 03:17 PM

The patents specifically mention "air". Now, I'd figure that to mean the nitrogen in the air, which constitutes the vast majority
of the stuff, but it might be from the other gases listed, like the hydrogen and argon.
Regardless, it works with plain ol' air. Just not as well as argon.
I wonder, is there a gas that'll emit IR? I know CO2 is used in IR cutting lasers, but would it disassociate under explosive
force? I believe it would.
nbk2000 October 31st, 2002, 07:02 AM

Another idea:
Personal body shields that have small discs (<5 grams) of a sheet explosive like det-flex covered with a plastic bubble filled
with xenon. These discs sit on a pumice foam layer to absorb the shock. There is no direct contact of explosive with the shield
that might weaken it.
When facing an adversary in darkness, you can trigger a disc, blinding anyone in the immediate area in front of you, while the
shield protects you from the flash and blast. Since there's multiple discs, you can trigger them as often as needed.
Since the shield is bullet-resistant, and the explosive shock sensitive, any bullet strikes on a disc will immediately set it off,
flashing your attacker, while the shield stops the bullet.
The use of shields made from lightweight bullet-resistant paneling goes towards a concept of highly armored criminals, much
like the LA bankrobbers, only better. :)
Dave Angel May 6th, 2004, 08:01 PM

"for a leyden jar to store a farad at just say 10KV you'd have a jar the size of a small town!"
Or maybe a storm cloud...
http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=1815
After reading through the thread on attracting lightning, I wondered if one could combine these ideas. Connect the ground end
of the conductive wire on the rocket to a cylinder of argon and use a lightning bolt to initiate the iso pulse.
It's probably not as simple as this, as the bolt could earth around the metal casing of the cylinder 'ignoring' the argon within.
The container may not even rupture.
Perhaps a non-conductive container with metallic points at the top (wire attached) and bottom (ground) to guide the bolt
through the argon. Putting a fine wire between the two points could make sure of this.
Of course, the first example would be more desirable if it could work, due to the simplicity, and that your kilo of argon is pre-
pressurized, most likely at a higher pressure than one can create with ones own container.
JoeJablomy May 6th, 2004, 10:14 PM

COIL - chemical oxygen/iodine laser, right? I never understood how they got these to work. It is my understanding that it
reacts atomic oxygen with iodine vapour to cause the population inversion required for lasing. BUT, how do they keep the
atomic oxygen atomic?! I've seen a demo (in fact, the same demo is shown on a site which I think I got to from a link here
somewhere...) where chlorine is passed through 30% H2O2 to produce atomic oxygen, which very soon recombines and causes
a deep red chemiluminescence. I don't know how they stop it from doing this for long enough to get it into the lasing cavity?
It isn't atomic oxygen, it's an electronically excited state of O2 ("singlet oxygen") that has about the right energy for near IR
lasers but is actually too stable to effectively lase, or something to that effect. The iodine gas is atomic, and has an
appropriate metastable transition, and the singlet O2 transfers energy to it. I get the impression that COILs operate at a low
internal pressure to reduce the incidence of the singlet O2 undergoing a pooling reaction to ground state and a less stable
form that spontaneously emits at, I believe, 730 nm. To give you an idea of the complexity of this chemical system that
someone had to come up with, the less stable O2 species actually serves to split the I2 gas that goes into the chamber into
atomic I gas.
matjaz May 7th, 2004, 07:20 AM

...The gas will emit whatever spectra it would if energized in an electric tube, like a neon light. So, xenon would be blue-white,
neon red-orange, etc...
NBK, Not meaning to be a smart-ass but I just stumbled across this. Actually, at high pressures, it doesn't work this way. The
mean free path of atoms/molecules is so short, that the next colission occurs before the entire "photon" would be radiated
away in a neat wavepacket of a defined color. This cuts the wavepackets short and thus broadens the spectral lines so much
that you get a very continuous spectrum, depending mostly on the temperature, not on the original charasteristic transitions
(as known from low pressure applications).
I wonder, is there a gas that'll emit IR? I know CO2 is used in IR cut...
Again, at extreme temperatures and pressures, other mechanisms govern light output. If the excitation level of an atom is
high enough for a visible or even a UV photon, it will do it, rather than climbing down slowly via many IR transitions, even if
they were possible.
So unless a very exotic material is fashioned, any IR output must be accompanied by a vast amount of visible and UV energy.
JoeJablomy May 7th, 2004, 10:40 AM

NBK, Not meaning to be a smart-ass but I just stumbled across this. Actually, at high pressures, it doesn't work this way. The
mean free path of atoms/molecules is so short, that the next colission occurs before the entire "photon" would be radiated
away in a neat wavepacket of a defined color. This cuts the wavepackets short and thus broadens the spectral lines so much
that you get a very continuous spectrum, depending mostly on the temperature, not on the original charasteristic transitions
(as known from low pressure applications).
I believe what the reference at the start of the thread said was that the spectral bands were broadened into effectively white
light. This is a doppler effect where the emitting molecule is moving toward or away from the direction that it emits in and the
energy (thus wavelength) of the photon is changed. The hotter it is, the wider the emission bands.
Under what theory can photons be cut "short", implying a shorter wave, and have less energy? What is a "wavepacket"?
If the excitation level of an atom is high enough for a visible or even a UV photon, it will do it, rather than climbing down
slowly via many IR transitions, even if they were possible.
Only if it has a higher tendency to make that transition. Lasers would not be possible if all particles behaved this way;
according to your statement, both three state and four state cycles would be impossible because the emitters would go directly
to ground state rather than stopping at the second and/or third states.
Guerilla May 8th, 2004, 05:39 PM

Dave, that sounds like an interesting idea.
However, would this actually result in any brighter flash than a normal lightning strike has? That is, with such an insane
amount of voltage the gas sure would get ionized *completely* but after that the current would just run through it, resulting in
maybe a relatively prolonged (due to high ionisation potentials noble gases have compared to air) and different colored but
not noticeably brighter flash, no?
Anyways, I'm willing to carry out a similar test if nothing else then as an exciting experiment; the idea of attracting lightning
fascinates me. ;) Last summer I happened to be around 100m from a lighting strike, it really blinds you for a few secs even if
you don't look straight at it, I don't think it's much of a risk to a camcorder though.. Instead of a rocket and a pressurized
cylinder I thought I would just use a 20-30l helium filled balloon that has two pieces of foil on both sides as electrodes, the
lower one grounded with a 50-100m long copper wire. There could also be a smaller balloon hanging above, tied to the upper
electrode with a bare conductor, making the current more likely to move through the gas. The whole event could safely be
observed from inside a car without having to be too far from the grounding zone.
Dave Angel May 8th, 2004, 06:24 PM

"would this actually result in any brighter flash than a normal lightning strike has?"
Hmm, I'm not sure, but it would be fun to find out! I wonder what it would do?
Look at the brightness of a lightning bolt arcing through atmospheric gas at atmospheric pressure. Some of the energy goes
into breaking molecular bonds and yet it is still so bright. With pressurised argon, no bond breaking is involved and there's a
lot more gas around to get ionized...
A longer flash, different colour, maybe brighter? Perhaps with all that hot gas needing to expand, one might create an
incredible thunder clap. But who knows? There could be some counter-intuitive things going on here and physics isn't my best
subject.
Worth trying for the whole 'Frankenstein Feeling' anyway. Good luck with your attempt.
matjaz May 9th, 2004, 07:33 AM

This is a doppler effect where the emitting molecule is moving toward or away from the direction that it emits in and the
energy (thus wavelength) of the photon is changed. The hotter it is, the wider the emission bands.That's another broading
mechanism, yes. It works also in hot gases at low density.
Under what theory can photons be cut "short", implying a shorter wave, and have less energy? What is a "wavepacket"?No,
less energy would be longer waveLENGTH. I meant shorter WAVE, hence bigger uncertainty in wavelength. (To answer: With
wavepacket I meant a photon here. And if I really must pick a name for the theory, it would be QED.)
Lasers would not be possible if all particles behaved this way; according to your statement, both three state and four state
cycles would be impossible because the emitters would go directly to ground state rather than stopping at the second and/or
third states.Because you don't have a high temperature there, just a dense flux. If you pumped the level distribution to a
much higher temperature (with forced implosion, etc), ionize even, the steep energy dependence of the transition probabilities
would prevail over the multipolarities, I think.
Oh, just thought of another broadening mechanism. When the gas is ionized (hi-temp), you can do "transitions" where
enegies are continuous in principle, because you can move between the continuum states (free electrons) and bound states
(defined energies).
Jacks Complete May 30th, 2004, 11:05 PM

Any blackbody radiation is going to put out a large portion of it's energy output as IR. Pushing more energy out requires going
further up the temperature scale, and hence shifting the peak wavelengths. This still increases the IR energy further, meaning
things get very inefficient very quickly - less than 10% of a hundred watt light bulb is actually visible light.
You have to do clever things with atomic spectra and re-radiative absorption, etc. to sway things so that the energy is output
as what you are after - hence the massive numbers of Krypton and Argon bulbs, which shift the IR up into the visible using
photon recombination (iirc)
Lasers and semiconductor devices avoid this by using a different light output mechanism, leading to greater efficiency (not
that most lasers are anything like efficient, unless looked at from the brightness at a required frequency) by not wasting lots
of power via the majority of the black body spectra.
The downside to the laser approach is that throwing more power at it generally doesn't work. Think along the lines of a
sensitive scale - you can use more force or less force, but there is only one right answer!
Anyway, to outshine the sun, the simplest way is to cheat, and get a diode laser pointer, which will be ten million times brighter
than the sun at the chosen output wavelength. The other way is to go and buy a 5 million candlepower lamp. Mine is charging
upstairs right now! It is intense, to say the least.
Vulture,
the N2 triple bond can be broken, and when it reforms, it outputs in the UV part of the spectrum. It also self-terminates very
rapidly, so much so that you can't make a normal laser from it, as the beam would re-absorb before it got out the tube!
However, the ability is there, and you can use it with the right design.
Marvin May 31st, 2004, 06:12 AM

Nitrogen does not require the triple bond to be broken in order to ionise, nor does it require to be broken or ionised to lase.
The efficiancy of a UV nitrogen laser is very very small though 0.1%ish IIRC making the output energy per pulse very small
indeed. Furthur more as you increase the pressure collisional deactivation reduces the lifetime of the excited state even
furthur, and its allready too fast for anything but special electronic methods. The gas being excited by the shockwave would be
too turbulent to lase even if a method were found to get the shockwave through the gas within a few nanoseconds....
The energy in a a HE is usually less than a typical pyrotechnic mixture, and the energy in the shockwave is small compaired to
the total chemical energy released. In terms of generating a bright flash I dont see any real advantages over a flash powder
unless the short pulse is being used to optically pump a laser.
If someone was after temperary blindness, using visible light would be essential, but for perminant eye damage theres no
advantage.
matjaz,
Nice idea about uncertainty caused by 'cutting short' a photon, but that would require the emitting species to be left in an
equally uncertain state to avoid conservation of energy problems. Since its limited to discrete states this cant happen. I think
you are confusing lifetime broadening with collisional broadening. Collisional broadening is based on the location of neerby
atoms affecting the energy levels of the orbitals. We still assume that absorption and emission happens much faster than the
movement of atoms (Franck-Condon Principle). Your statement about lifetime of excited states decreasing with increasing
energy doesnt affect the initial statement about UV and visible decays - which is allready a specific energy band, though its a
valid point for anyone trying to make X ray lasers. UV/Vis transisions are heavily influenced by spin and symmetry rules.
Increasing the termperature (like increasing the pressure) would decrease the probability of seeing a rare transition, not
increase it, because there is a greater chance of collisional deactivation/intersystem crossing making alternative emission (in
stages) much more likley.
Jacks Complete May 31st, 2004, 03:12 PM

Marvin,
I think the OP is not going to work. At least, not in a non-military setting.
You can actually make a single mirror UV pulse laser that will work just by taking the O2 out by combustion, then absorbing
the CO2. Apparently the remaining N2 is pure enough that you can make it lase with a flashlamp and a pulsed lamp. The
biggest problem is that the lamp is massively inefficient, before you get anywhere near the Nitrogen!
There is an Amateur Scientist column from SciAm on it, somewhere, but I don't have it in full any more.
Marvin June 1st, 2004, 04:08 AM

You have the right idea, but the N2 laser cannot be optically pumped. Lifetime of the excited state is around 25ns, lifetime of
what it drops to is in the 10's of us. Add a cavity and you only have gain for about 6 or 8ns. Practically the only way to get
energy into the N2 this fast is to build a flat plate capacitor and have an N2 discharge area built into one of the edges, ie
transverse discharge rather than lengthways through the gas as in ordinary lasers.
An 8ns long pulse of light has some uses, like bullet stopping flash photographs, but its very difficult to focus and low
pressure N2 has a crappy energy density anyway (for a laser).
Jacks Complete June 1st, 2004, 10:12 AM

You're right... I was getting confused between the dye laser and the N2 laser! Now you mention the flat plate capacitor, I recall
it a bit better. I wish I still had that article. (see below)
It's a flat bit of double sided PCB, etched into a sort of flat plate, with the gas flowing down the center of one side. The article
reckoned you used a vacuum pump to drop the N2 pressure far enough for it to spark, and then the gas flowed out, and was
replaced, and it would fire again (iirc, again that might have been the dye laser).
I'm going to go and try to get a copy of the article. It was in a collection of plans called "Light and it's uses"
EDIT: In fact, I just found a photo- http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/ccn2ls.jpg

and the plans - http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/n21asm.gif
as well as a lot more detail than you will need for something like this - http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasercn2.htm
Seems you can't lase the air, much as I thought, due to the O2 stopping it in concentrations above 1%, though someone says
that about .3% O2 can actually improve performance.
Jacks Complete September 3rd, 2004, 08:56 PM
Just had to post a boast on here.
I have just got my hands on two rather lovely things that can outshine the sun. I've got a 5 million candlepower spotlamp and
a 5mW Green laser pointer. Both are brilliantly cool toys.
The lamp is insanely powerful, easily lighting a room up in daylight, and capable of shining right through post, hands, etc.
Gets hot quite fast though...
The laser is great, you can light a tree up at a mile without any trouble, and you can even see the beam through the air at
night. Seriously bright, and very coherent, with a very low divergence (beam spread)
I'm going to be building the dye laser soon, since I have got some great dye of of eBay. I'm still trying to find a chemical
supply house nearby, though...

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > Future Fighting W e a p o n s
Log in
View Full Version : Future Fighting Weapons
RTC January 1st, 2002, 05:41 PM

I've a tape o n this, it's about 30m ins long, and covers a few of the Future Fighting Weapo ns. (hellies, com m s, weapons, tan k s ,
b o m bs, tech advancm ents, pilot training)
So if there is enough (say more than 5) people that actually want it, please let me know.
The reason I say that is on dial up, it takes a few hours to download som ething decent. As many of the 56ker's know.
It's in two pa rts the first being 1 2 . 2 m b a n d t h e s e c o n d b e i n g 6 . 3 5 m b . ( 1 8 . 6 m b in total do wnload)
It'll take m e a b o u t a n h o u r a n d h a l f t o u p l o a d .
Ctrl_C January 1st, 2002, 05:51 PM

s e n d i t ! a n y t h i n g o n e x o s k e l e t o n s ? t h o s e t h i n g s would kick so m uch ass if they figured out how to power th em without risking
thousands of Chernobyls.
Noct January 1st, 2002, 06:36 PM

I would love to see it! I always m iss those types of shows on the Discovery channel, it seem s.
However, I saw a couple good ones the other day... an hour special on pickpockets, and o ne on crime in general, in cluding a
lot of info on shoplifting (the only section I really saw).
Anyway, uhh, that would be great!
mrloud January 1st, 2002, 06:57 PM

Yes. Please upload it. Sounds interesting.
kingspaz January 1st, 2002, 06:59 PM

i'd like to see it! i allways wonder what sort of weapons there will be in the future.
Mick January 1st, 2002, 08:23 PM

yeah, upload it...i would be interested in seing it
RTC January 1st, 2002, 08:44 PM

W ow, didn't expect th is m uch feedback so quick, I'll begin uploa d i n g a s s o o n a s I h i t t h e A d d R e p l y b u t t o n .
The topics it covers are pretty much what I put in the first reply. But there's a few others like recon robots for subs a nd ships
testing for m i n e s a n d other hull busting "toys" :D .
I a l s o u p l o a d e d s o m ething called "Eating Pavem ent" check that out as well, it's quite funn y, I won't tell you what it is, as tha t
will spoil the suspence.[sp?]
nbk2000 January 4th, 2002, 02:46 AM

I spent quite a few hours downloading the FFW part 2 file since I thought m a y b e s o m e o n e h a d t a k e n m y earlier hin t and
convert Final Fantasy, The Spirts W ithin (FFW ?) into RealVideo.
I m a g i n e m y disappointm ent after 4 hours of downloading to discover this:
http://server3001.freeyellow.com /nbk2000/error.gif
Anyone else have this problem?
Also, it wouldn't hurt to have actually n amed the file "Future Fighting W eapons" instead of "FFW". Much more descriptive that
way, saves people tim e .
And while on the subject of R ealVideo, what where your settings when converting the video ? And what program did you use for
converting?
I j u s t u p p e d a v i d e o a b o u t M P 5 s u b m achine guns to the FTP ("MP5_MP5SD_MP5K_by_NBK" note the title, very descriptive) that
started out a s a 30MB mpg, reduced to 3.5MB. Used Slideshow/Corporate LAN/Dual-pass, variable rate, de-interlace . And it
c a m e o u t l o o k i n g p r e t t y d a m n good. I could have used full motion video, but that would have tripled the size and really add e d
nothing to th e p u r p o s e .
You'll note in the video that the m an isn't wearing ear m uffs when firing the SD version, and it's REALLY quiet. The target
getting hit is louder than the shots.
Also, the cop talking about the K version, says they were going around wearing th ese under their coats while posing as drug
dealers making deliveries in stretch lim o s .
OK...... :rolleyes:
Firstly, any "drug dealer" who rolls around making drug deliveries in a lim o is eith er:
A. A fool! You don't draw attention to yourself, and a lim os sole purpose is to do just that. Also, su b m a c h i n e g u n s a re VERY
rare (especially K versions) and not som ething a dealer is going to have. Unless the dealer is from colombia, in which case,
why is he delivering d o p e t o s o m e g h e tto thug?
B. A cop! Because they know that peoples "m i n d s e y e " i m a g e o f a " b i g t i m e" dealer is a g uy with a lim o and bodyguards with
Hi-tech m a c h i n e g u n s . T o o m uch "Miam i Vice" I'm afraid.
[ J a n u a r y 0 4 , 2 0 0 2 : M e s s a g e e d i t e d b y : n b k 2 0 00 ]
RTC January 4th, 2002, 02:50 PM

I d o n ' t h a v e a n y p r o b l e m with watching it, so I decided to download it and test it, but I can still watch it.
I used Multi Rate Sure Stream , voice o nly, normal m otion video, single isdn, and used the version you (NBK) uploaded to the
FTP.
Sorry for the confusion on the file nam e a l s o .
EventHorizon January 4th, 2002, 10:19 PM

Anyone else here actually fired an SD version o f the MP5? They are fucking sweet and I know from first hand experience. :D
Hope I haven't made anyone jealous. ;)

Neat stuff. I tried downloading again and it works now.
W hen converting vide o for uploading to the FTP, you do n't want to use sure-stream . This adds additional layers of data (lager
file sizes) that aren't needed since people are going to be downloading it and not watching it via stream ing.
Also, it sounds like it's coming from the bottom of a well. Voice only is fo r that....voice ONLY. The video has plenty of
b a c k g r o u n d m usic in it so the appropriate choice should h a v e b e e n s e l e c t e d .
T h e " S h a r p e s t I m a g e " selection would also be m ore appropriate since there is a LOT of action in the video. It m ay m o v e a
little jerky, but it's m uch easier to watch than a blur.
Corporate LAN should be considered the m inimum acceptable.
For an example of an EXCELLENT conversion, check out the Final Fantasy RealVideo that's on the FTP. It's fucking KICKS ASS!
:D T hough I'm sure being a DVD rip helps a lot too.
W ho posted that anyways?
Do a conversion, then watch it yourself and ask "Would I watch this?". If not, keep going up till you get something that you'd
watch. Then do the next highest because others haven't becom e u s e d t o watching it, so their expe ctations will be higher.
Anyways, keep practicing, you'll get the hang of it and the effort is appreciated. My first videos weren't DeMill classics either.

I guess I'll pipe up since its praise ;) .
First conversion was 77MB, yes, from 5 28MB an d it looked like total shit. That was using single rate 56k.
T h e s e t t i n g s I t h i n k I u s e d f o r t h e o n e I uped were, single rate, voice with background m usic, sharpest ima g e , a n d 2 5 6 k D S L
and took about an hour for the conversion.
I used multi rate sure stream and 512k DSL/Cable and the file was actually bigger than the input file (900+MB compared to
528MB) and over 2h to convert.
Also, they were conve rted from the original .avi.
[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: EventHorizon ]

I suspected it was you since you had p osted a list of m oviez earlier on the FTP and FF/TSW was one of them .
Good Job!
And this is a perfect example of why the MPAA's shit scared attem pts at preventing copying is not only futile, but counter-
productive.
Because, now having seen the video that I wasn't able to see in the thea ther, or able to rent, I'll just straight buy on DVD
because it's so visually am a z i n g .
If it wasn't for the joy of m oviez, I'd never have bothered with it.
angelo January 8th, 2002, 05:21 AM

Ctrl_C,
D o y o u a c t u a l l y h a v e a n y i n f o o n e x o s k e l e t o n s ? P l e a s e t e l l m e y o u d o , I a m really interested in exoskeletons, but I do not
have alot of inform ation (not even a little).
---
I believe that this will be a great age for Fighting W e a p o n s . T h e r e a r e s o m any institutes, corporations, and what ever else,
actually researching new Developments, like DARPA (US) or DSTO (OZ).
S o m e o f t h e m o r e s e n i o r m e m b e r s m ight rem e m b e r t h e t o p i c o n m o u n t i n g a C a m era on a rifle, therefore letting you see

around a corner witho ut exposing oneself. DSTO just started to m ount these on Steyr's for the australian army. By 2010,
Australia is said to advance to a new stage of fighting weapons.
D A R P A , l o n g a g o i n v e n t e d t h e o n e - m a n-helicopter. It is said that once this Helico pter is in place, it would revolutionise warfa re.
I m a g i n e b e i n g a b l e t o s w o o p o v e r y o u r e n e m i e s a n d d i s c h a r g e t h e m e a s i l y f r o m t h e a i r , I m a g i n e b e i n g a b le to cover great
distance in hours instead of days on foot.
Yes, It will be interesting to see how the Future wars will be fought. W ith wars being fought as a big PR c a u s e , g o v e r n m e n t s a
p a y i n g m ore money for research that would cause less soldiers to come hom e i n b o d y b a g s , t h u s m a k i n g t h e g o v e r n m e n t l o o k
better in the publics eye.
No country would want to associate itself with launching nuclear missiles in an insane atem pt to kill civilians. Sure America did it
in W WII but that still gives Am erica a bad rap. So I believe nuclear weapons would be use d as a last ditch effort, not as a
straight equalizer.
Before I end I would like to say that if this starts the old America vs the world shit I know that I would not be the on ly pissed
off person around here.

It'll be neat when they start using directed energy weapons like excim er and chemical lasers, x-ray pulse lasers, and mini-
nukes with yields like 100 tons of TNT.
I rem e m b e r a d i s c u s s i o n o n s l a s h d o t a b o u t e x o s k e l o t o n s t h a t h ad a link to a prototype walker. Didn't have arm or or shit like

that, since it was strictly man powered, but eventually they'll com e up with suitable power supplies to m ake it workable as a
weapon. There may be a link in the uberarchives som ewhere.
A n d I r e m e m ber the TV gunsight thread since I'm the o ne who started it. Still got it too (the gunsight).
But I'm leaning towards fibero ptics now instead for daylight use because of the utter simplicity of it. Totally free of moving
parts, no electronics or batteries to get Murphy'd, cheap , and a rock-solid piece of kit.
The periscope (as shown in another thread) is for general lookin g around. There'd be a small screen on the rifle itself attached
to a reeled strand of FO that pulls out when needed tha t'd clip to the helm et or BDU a s n e e d e d .
And I'd be surprised if the US isn't still running a covert bioweapons program . W e h a v e t h e m o s t a d v a n c e d b i o - t e c h n o l o g y i n
the world, surely it's being put to use.
Though the russians aren't slouches either as it is now well known that th ey've been fucking around with an ebola/sm a l l p o x
hybrid. Sounds tasty.

NBK:
I h a v e a b u n ch of m oviez and can't rem ember what I posted on the list, but I did n't do the origina l convert of FF/TSW so I
guess I can't take full credit for it :( .
I usually don't give a crap about size of the m ovies since I burn them to CD for viewing and want the absolute highest quality.
I plan on getting the DVD tho. I would have never thought about even watching it had I not obtained it this way.
angelo January 9th, 2002, 12:35 AM

NBK2000, would you be talking about the springwalker?
<a href="http://www.springwalker.com " target="_blank">springwalker</a>
this is a hum a n p o w e r e d e x o s k e l e t o n . M o r e f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e .

Yes, the springwalker is what I was thinking of.
Sure, it's useless as a weapon NO W....but in the future....
Ever seen wh at the first tanks looked like? Big clunky boxes that m o v e d a s f a s t a m an could slowly walk, armed with little
spitball cannons and m achineguns.
C o m pare that with todays tanks like the abhram s. NO C O M P A R I S O N!
In fifty years these things could be flying and running fast as a cheeta.
Also, I was at Office Depot yesterday waiting for my ride hom e a fter FINALLY getting m y fucking tooth pulled (more happy pills!
:) ), and was dinking around on their display of Hewlett-Packard computers.
W e l l i m a g i n e m y surprise when I found com plete Divx-4 copies of Final Fantasy (700MB) and Shrek on them ! And these
computer have built in CD burners....how conve nient. :D
Not having known this before, I didn't have a blank C D-R with m e, but next tim e..... ;)
S o a n y o n e i n t e r e s t e d i n f r e e c o p i e s o f t h o s e a b o v e m ovies, go find an O .D. or sim ilar type of business. I'd im a g i n e computer

stores would also be a free su pplier.
RTPB: "Anything that's free must be exploited".
And if they catch you and give you any lip, tell 'em your testing out the recorder since you do a lot of video editing for VCD's.
If th ey STILL give you any lip, call the MPAA on them fo r letting people m a k e f r e e c o p i e s o f m ovies on their machin es, with
$100,000 fines per copy m ade, and a reward for you for doing so.
Callers to the MPAA's anti-piracy hotline (1-800 -662-6797) are eligible for a $15,000 reward for inform ation that lea ds to the
arrest and conviction of persons engaging in video piracy, and $2,500 to the first person to provide inform a t i o n o n a v i d e o
pirate lab.
PUNKS, FUC K W ITH ME W ILL YA?! :p

[ J a n u a r y 0 9 , 2 0 0 2 : M e s s a g e e d i t e d b y : n b k 2 0 00 ]
Ctrl_C January 9th, 2002, 03:04 PM

i ran a search on slashdot (just curious: how many slashdotters do we ha ve?) and it came up with a DARPA proposal.
<a href="http://slash dot.org/article.pl?sid=00/03/23/1011217&mode=thread" target="_blank">DAR P A e x o s k e l e t o n p r o p o s a l < /

a>
e x o s k e l e t o n s w o u l d b e a m a z i n g . i m a g ine a soldier being able to leap over a 40ft concrete wall with razor wire on the
top...effortlessly. ima g i n e b e i n g a b l e t o r u n a t 5 0 + m p h . i m a g i n e b e i n g a b l e t o p u n c h t h r o ugh a wall. quite amazing .
I saw an article in PopSci on exoskeletons too, but due to their lack of an online cataloging system , I will probabaly never find
it in my 200+ issues. :(
nbk2000 January 9th, 2002, 11:00 PM

It's either Po p Sci or Pop Mech, but one of them at least prints an end of year index of every article from the prior year. It's
either the de cem ber or january issue.
Scan that in, OCR, and you've got your searchable index.
Starship Troopers was fiction in the '50 s, but I'd im agine in 2050, powered m echa armor will be fact. I'll be 80 when it happe ns,
but m y children would be able to enjoy using them for nefarious purposes.
vulture January 13th , 2 0 0 2 , 0 3 : 5 5 P M

I f o u n d s o m e t h i n g t h a t i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o b e u s e d a s a w e a p o n , b u t c a n b e u s e d f o r c o o k i n g p e r s o n s / a n i m als/whatever from a
distance and instantly destroying any electronic equipment within it's reach. :D
<a href="http://www.powerlabs.org/uwavexp.htm # T h e % 2 0 P O W E R LABS%20Microwave%20Gun!" target="_blank">http://

www.powerlabs.org/uwavexp.htm#The%20PO WERLABS%20Microwave%20 Gun!</a>
scroll the page down to the bottom, it's titled "The POW ER LABS Microwave Gun!".
T h e r e ' s a l o t o f n e a t s t u f f o n t h a t p a g e l i k e m a k i n g p l a s m a balls in your microwave,high voltage tesla coil and even a liquid
nitrogen pistol!

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > Making barrels
Log in
View Full Version : Making barrels
Jacks Complete January 17th, 2005, 01:42 PM

I've run a search or three, but haven't found anything on making barrels. Plenty on trying to rifle the barrels, but nothing on
techniques for making the blank yourself.
If this seems odd, it is probably because either I missed them on the search (it comes back with a *lot* of results!), or
because the US members just go and buy a barrel blank.
I'm not thinking of making really high precision barrels, and would prefer to avoid the use of a lathe. Everyone keeps saying
"Just buy some DOM tubing" but I can't find anywhere that isn't a barrel maker that sells it (or even lists it as stock), so why
not make it at home?
In essence, I am thinking of some form of hot drawing process. Using either a charcoal or gas forge, heat the target steel rod
to cherry red, doing it slowly so that the interior gets very hot as well, then dropping it over the tyre hole on your anvil and
driving a hot punch through it. Start with a narrow one, and get a small hole all the way through. This will make further
operations with heating a lot easier. Now heat it again, and drive the next size through, until you finally drive the size you want
right through. If you think you can do it, you could drive a chamber too, but you would probably need to drive that before the
final sizeing of the bore.
Does anyone have experiance with hot forging? Would this be possible? I think the contraction of the bore/barrel would have
to be taken into account once cooled, and you probably couldn't get very long barrels like this. Could this be done accurately?
Even with a too small hole down the center, the metal would be easier to drill or lathe, since there would be a lot less metal to
remove.
This would allow the production of stainless steel barrels, perhaps. It would even be possible to use a (an electric) forge to
smelt the steel and cast a proto-barrel first, with a small central channel. This could be removed while still at the dull red stage
(to avoid a liquid center), and driven through with the punches. Or perhaps drilled with HSS bits.
As for hot button rifleing, is it possible?
Anyway, this has gotten rather long for a speculative post. Depending on if there is any feedback that thinks this may be
possible, I will likely give it a go on a dry weekend. Obviously, I'll only be casting and forging strong tubes, rather than
barrels!
SweNMFan January 17th, 2005, 02:13 PM

Hmm
http://www.xtremeaccuracy.com/Rifle_Barrel.htm
Barrel-Making Technologies
Now that we've established certain basic terminology, let's take a look at
the various ways that custom barrels are made.
Single-Point Hook-Cut Rifling. This is perhaps the oldest extant technology used to create a rifled bore. First developed in the
15th century armament shops surrounding Milan, Italy, this most basic form of cut-rifling remains very much an artisan's craft.
Indeed, with the exception of CNC controls, a journeyman barrel maker working for Beretta in the early 1600s would find much
in today's cut-rifling shop quite familiar.
With single-point cut rifling, the craftsman selects a length of round steel bar stock, usually about 1.25 inch in diameter, for
deep-hole drilling.
This operation, together with the reaming operation that follows, is as
important to the overall quality of the barrel as the rifling itself. In
this case, the hole is drilled and reamed to a size that is slightly tighter
than the land diameter for that caliber. Here's a brief but important
aside: Regardless of the rifling technique used, better barrel makers
typically will run a light abrasive lap through the bore to eliminate any
residual reamer marks. If a barrel maker says that he doesn't lap his
barrels, and you choose to use such a barrel, you should prepare yourself in advance for some fairly rough sledding in terms
of bore fouling and
subsequent cleaning steps. Some barrel makers still insist that lapping
doesn't matter, but the facts are that it matters quite a lot. Caveat
emptor.
Once the steel barrel blank is ready, it is rifled. With single-point cut
rifling, a hook-like cutter literally carves out each groove, one at a time.
Generally, it can take as many as 20-30 passes of the cutter to finish just
one groove. Once the rifling is complete, the barrel is contoured to the
customer's specification and then lapped to improve the smoothness of the bore.
Very time and labor intensive, single-point cut-rifled barrels are typically
more expensive to purchase than any other barrel type, and given the
production limits of the process itself, high-volume production by a single rifling machine is all but impossible. Among its
clique of devotees,
single-point cut-rifled barrels are considered the Rolls Royce of custom
rifle barrels. Today, the major U.S. suppliers of high quality,
hand-lapped, cut-rifled barrels include BlackStar in Texas, K&P in New
Mexico, Chanlynn in Colorado and Krieger and Obermeyer in Wisconsin.
Multi-Point Broach-Cut Rifling. This rifling process has much in common

with the single-point process, but represents an attempt to speed up the
rifling process by carving out all of the desired number of grooves at once. With two exceptions, today's broach-cut barrels are
not made to the same quality levels as barrels produced by single-point cut rifling or button rifling. Today, manufacturers of
black powder muzzle-loading rifles use much of the annual broach-cut barrel production.
After the steel barrel blank is drilled and reamed, a series of ever- larger broaches are passed down the bore, cutting all of the
grooves deeper and deeper. Once the final groove dimension is established, the barrel is contoured to fit the customer's
needs and either lapped or shipped to the customer as a completed piece.
Prior to Germany's development of hammer-forged barrel technology in the late 1930s and the American creation of button
rifling in the 1950s,
broach-cut rifling was considered the high-volume barrel production
technology. Most of the military barrels made for turn-of-the-century
service rifles were broach-cut, as well as the wartime barrel production for the M1 Garand. In an attempt to further increase
barrel production during World War II, military contractors began using broaches with only two cutters, producing the now-
famous "two groove" barrel for the M1 rifle.
Today, the major U.S. makers of high-quality broach-cut barrels are Olympic Arms in Washington State, and Badger Barrels in
Wisconsin. At the time of this writing, neither maker laps its barrels.
Precision Button Rifling. During the 1950s, Remington Arms engineer Mike Walker began experimenting with a new rifling
technology that would eventually become the dominant production technique for high-quality custom rifle barrels. Called
"button rifling," the new technology effectively bridged the gap between the quality problems associated with high-volume
hammer forging and the production problems associated low-volume, high-quality cut rifling.
Steel barrel blanks destined for button rifling must start out the same way as their single-point cut and broach-cut cousins.
The blank is deep-hole drilled and reamed, usually with rebuilt, early 20th century Pratt & Whitney drilling machines. As
discussed above, some makers like to run a light lap through the bore prior to rifling, and others don't.
Made from very hard carbide, the "button" in button rifling has been
carefully machined with the reverse of the rifling pattern that is desired
for the barrel. It is marginally larger than the hole in the barrel blank.
This button is pushed through the hole under great pressure, displacing the steel into lands and grooves. In many respects,
the process extrudes the rifling into the barrel, with the button acting as a moving, mini-mandrel.
As you might imagine, this process can put a lot of stress into the barrel
steel. If a button-rifled blank is contoured without any prior stress
relief, the release of the radial stresses resulting from the machining
process will cause the bore dimension to grow radically and unevenly down the bore. Button-rifled barrel makers most often
eliminate these
dimensional variations by lapping the bore after contouring until the
dimensions are uniform and the surface is smooth. Some, including
BlackStar, Pac-Nor and Krieger, apply cryogenic stress relief technology to their barrels to completely eliminate stresses. In
addition to being the pioneer in integrating cryogenic tempering into barrel production, BlackStar is the only barrel maker to
apply this important technology twice to every barrel that it makes.
Today, most of the barrels used in benchrest competition are button-rifled, proving that these barrels are capable of producing
consistently high levels of accuracy. The top custom button-rifled barrel makers in the United States include Hart Barrels in New
York, BlackStar and Shilen in Texas, Lilja Precision Rifle Barrels in Montana, Pac-Nor Barreling in Oregon, and Schneider
Custom Barrels in Arizona. Douglas, the old barrel maker in West Virginia, dominates the U.S. production of less expensive,
after-market barrels.
Hammer-Forged Factory Barrels. First developed in Germany, hammer-forging technology is a method of manufacturing a
large volume of barrels very quickly. Today, this technology dominates factory barrel production and is in use by Remington,
U.S. Repeating Arms, Sturm Ruger, and many others.
In hammer forging, a short piece of barrel steel is extruded along a mandrel that has the reverse of the rifling form desired
for the barrel. Unlike button rifling, however, hammer forging forms the barrels around the mandrel, rather than putting rifling
into a full-length piece of bar stock. Despite all of the marketing hype, however, hammer-forged barrels are rarely paragons of
accuracy and performance. Laden with internal stresses, these barrels also often exhibit very rough bores, which are the result
of poorly maintained production mandrels. All in all, most gunsmiths do not consider hammer-forged barrels to be good
candidates for a high-quality custom rifle.
Barrel Steels
Today, you have two basic choices in barrel steel: traditional blued chrome moly steel and the more modern stainless steel.
During past years, partisans for both have made a wide range of claims about their respective qualities and advantages, most
of which had little basis in fact. Today, stainless is by far the most popular steel in the custom barrel category, and it is on the
rise in factory barrels as well.
Obviously, blued steel delivers the more traditional look to a rifle, and
many, many shooters still prefer the old-style aesthetic to the modern, racy appearance of stainless actions and barrels. I
definitely fall into this category when the subject turns to high-grade, Circassian walnut-stocked hunting guns with express
sights or low-power scopes. After having done the synthetic stocked, high-performance stainless rifle bit, I have returned to
the warm feel of great wood, the subdued colors of fine bluing, and cartridges that are about more than just raw, pedal-to-the-
metal velocity. However, I also don't take these rifles to wet, humid places, nor do I use them in competition.
With this last two considerations uppermost in our minds, we come the place where stainless is king. If you are a benchrest or
high power competitor, a stainless barrel is the way to go. Generally, the primo accuracy life of a conventional 416R stainless
barrel will be a bit longer that blued chrome moly. If you hunt in soggy or salty conditions, you simply have no choice -- a
synthetic stocked, stainless rifle is the only way to go. While 416R stainless is an improvement over blued steel, a new 17-4
type stainless barrel steel developed by Crucible Steel and BlackStar is by far the most corrosion resistant on the market. It is
called SS700, and it is more corrosion resistant and erosion resistant than any other barrel steel currently in use. After two
years on the market, barrels made from SS700 have consistently demonstrated a 3X-4X extension in throat life and
commensurate top-drawer accuracy.
I own several rifles with stainless barrels, and they are really super at
resisting the effects of southeast Texas' high humidity. If you object to a silver rifle on the grounds that you hate the way it
looks, there are a
number of cosmetic fixes that will also boost the corrosion resistance of
the metal even further. The first is Black Teflon coating, which is often
marketed under the trade name "Black T." A stainless rifle treated with
Black T will acquire a very nice black satin appearance that most
traditionalists find a great improvement over bead-blasted matte stainless. This is available through many vendors across the
country. An important detail about Black T: make sure that the person doing the work applies a mil-spec phosphate primer to
the metal work prior to using the Black Teflon. The second option is Black Titanium Nitride, which is a matte black, completely
indestructible surface treatment available through Ultra Light Arms of West Virginia. This treatment is available on barreled
receivers and other gun parts, but not the bolt body or bolt handle. Both options are excellent, with the nod going to Black T
for aesthetics and to Black TiN for utter durability.

SweNMFan,
I'm well aware of how commercial shops button broach their barrels - we have had many discussions here about the in's and
out's of trying to rifle a barrel. The basic consensus is that for the home shop, you are highly unlikely to be able to do it, since
you need a set of custom made carbide cutters and a huge hydraulic ram to push it. It also assumes that you HAVE A BARREL
TO START WITH!
The whole point of this thread is to make the barrel, as opposed to buying a tube. This is about hammer forgeing your own.
Your post is almost completely unrelated to that. It offers nothing at all that is useful, aside from the two short paragraphs in
the middle.
Hammer-Forged Factory Barrels. First developed in Germany, hammer-forging technology is a method of manufacturing a
large volume of barrels very quickly. Today, this technology dominates factory barrel production and is in use by Remington,
U.S. Repeating Arms, Sturm Ruger, and many others.
In hammer forging, a short piece of barrel steel is extruded along a mandrel that has the reverse of the rifling form desired
for the barrel. Unlike button rifling, however, hammer forging forms the barrels around the mandrel, rather than putting rifling
into a full-length piece of bar stock. Despite all of the marketing hype, however, hammer-forged barrels are rarely paragons of
accuracy and performance. Laden with internal stresses, these barrels also often exhibit very rough bores, which are the result
of poorly maintained production mandrels. All in all, most gunsmiths do not consider hammer-forged barrels to be good
candidates for a high-quality custom rifle. Yet even this is mostly irrelevant, since it tells us nothing about the process. I am
not talking about hammering the steel around a mandrel (which requires immense forces and huge machines), but of
punching through the hot steel to form the barrel. The steel would be fully stress relieved, since it is being worked hot.
This is a new production idea that takes into account the abilities and needs of the home workshop and the users of this
forum.
It isn't just some article copied and pasted from the web.
SweNMFan January 17th, 2005, 06:54 PM

I wouldn't use a homemade extruded tube atleast.. (maybe for .22LR)
With single-point cut rifling, the craftsman selects a length of round steel bar stock, usually about 1.25 inch in diameter, for
deep-hole drilling.
If it was good at the 15th century guess it's still good.. I would drill it, as for me that seems the only way to be sure that the
material have the same strenght all the way.
Anyhow found a article on the subject..
knowledgehungry January 17th, 2005, 07:49 PM

Drilling really sounds like your best option, it will take a long fucking time to get through it, and you will probably go through a
lot of bits but tempering your own steel isn't easy and I wouldn't trust it. Also pounding a straight hole through something
seems hard, you've got to have a real steady hand unless you have a different way of hammering it.
akinrog January 18th, 2005, 01:25 AM

Sir,
if you hot or cold forge steel stock to create your barrel blank, you will not only worry about contraction and changing barrel
bore size. Since you have to do it manually there shall be very different densities, hardnesses, and residual stress. So I am
not certain if it is feasible (but who knows human beings are capable dwellings, one may perfect the techniques you described,
given the fact that the people make tree log cannons to shot cannon balls in case of necessity :)).
As for the hammer rifling they use reciprocal hammers to create rifling on the blank. However in this case it is again barrel
blank not steel stock. It is a little bit (???) oversized though (however, no hot processes are mentioned). And I read
somewhere that there is residual radial stresses which are hard to eliminate. But the (rifled) barrels produced in this manner
are very wear resistant (which are used for fast machine guns).
Here is a link for barrels and rifling (http://www.border-barrels.com/articles/bmart.htm)
In a thread I suggested manually hammer rifling the barrels but the members disproved its feasibility since it is really very
hard (if you assume manual method). However, maybe a hybrid method (hot hammering) may be a way to go. Assume that
you have a heavy steel tube (according to link above stainless steel cannot be hammer rifled due to hardening problem),
drilled by a machinist and you have also a negatively rifled (meaning there are groves instead of lands and lands instead of
grooves) rod which also has a section for chambering (again according to the link the sophisticated hammer rifling machines
(aka rotary forging machines) can spit out a rifled and chambered barrel every three minutes.), one may produce a rifled
barrel. However it is really problematic since, say you have a steel tube having a wall thickness of 1,5 cm and a bore of 10 mm
(in order to fool the machinist), it shall be really problematic to forge it in a one go.
Jacks Complete January 18th, 2005, 08:41 AM

It doesn't take long, nor much force, to drive a spike through a piece of hot steel. It is about the consistence of cold butter.
When hot enough, (most) steel loses all of it's strength, and, indeed, will melt into a thick tar like liquid unable to support it's
own weight. All stresses are removed by this process, which is very very different from the type of cold hammer forging barrel
makers use these days for mass production.
You can make the walls as thick as you want, use any type of steel you want, and you can temper it how you want. For
something as wimpy as a pistol cartridge, I can't see any chance it could go wrong if you use a good bar and good thick walls.
As for getting straight walls, through the middle, etc. that's why I was asking if anyone had any experiance doing similar
things. I know it is quite easy to "drill" a hole through an inch of stock from the side (it is the standard way to make a rivet
hole, for example) but I don't know of anyone who has tried it lengthways, since there are no reasons to do it, except for
making a barrel or the like.
I can see that using something like a jig might be a good idea, and, unfortunately, it would be easiest to make the punches
(or the final punch) to the exact dimension in a lathe, but a file and a bar clamped into a drill should do at a push.
<ascii art>
______---\
>
--------__/
</ascii art>
is kind of the shape you need. The point pushes through, then opens up to the size you want, then tapers down to avoid
drawing the heat too fast, or getting stuck. Once through, the tool drops right the way through. It should be a little longer than
the barrel, but go long, as the steel will stretch a bit as you drive.
Note that this is all still theory. It would probably be easiest to build a jig, then push the tool through the steel with a hydraulic
ram. See attached.
Note that the jack in the picture is fully extended in the last step, but hs yet to get through, since I made the initial bar slightly
too long. In the next step, the punch would have dropped free from the ram, as it isn't actually held in place vertically, but sits
inside a tube attached to the ram. This way, the bore would probably be quite consistent. The one shown would be good for
black powder, as the end would still be closed, and all it would need is a flash hole drilled (assuming the punch could be
removed!)
tdog49 January 19th, 2005, 02:55 AM

Jack,
I can see nothing wrong with your ideas, really this is basically ( one of the ways) how blackpowder rifle barrels are made. .45
acp is a smokeless version of the .45 colt and as such tops out at just under 18,000 psi (17,700 being a hot load according to
Hogdon) w/ the .45 colt running at 13-14,000 psi. should be easily handled by cold rolled steel with a 1/4" wall thickness.
9mm however runs between 27,000 and 32,000 psi , so heat treating becomes much more critical.
I do think that drilling would be better than punching but that is just my opinion. Definitely better for stainless. Punching
stainless might make the hardness go off the scale. In my welding, I've had stainless end up in the 300-400 range. because
of exccessive heat.
not good.
anyway, good luck.
john_smith January 19th, 2005, 07:42 AM

No experience with forging (or barrel making in general), but I'm surprised noone has brought up the Hoffman gunsmithing
books yet...lots of info about drilling blanks here.
Dave the Rave January 19th, 2005, 03:02 PM

Mostly because Hoffman doesnt spoke about neither hot hammering nor hot drilling if we can name it that way.
I believe that JCs idea sounds very feassible and could be done with an small hydraulic hammer, but only some workshops
have one... Another thing, we may need to use some kind of outside casing, or else the drill bit could be driven transversally
to the axis of the blank or cause some irregular deformation on the blank.
Anyway, both hammering and drilling could be done with the same hydraulic hammer, but hammering will need an internal
pattern and an pre - drilled blank, so we again fall into the option of hot drilling.
The sketch JCs provided looks like some extemdable mandrels Ive seen on some sites. Ill do an search and update this
post with all the links I found.

Dave, the idea with this is that the jack pushes through the hot steel, rather than a hammering action. Hammering would
probably work, though.
The idea of having the tool able to rotate is that you could, perhaps, use a wrench to twist the tool as it went down, in a
controlled fashion.
You are probably right about using some kind of guide. I think it might be poosible to use a square section bar, as this would
be very easy to avoid turning, by a clamp or something down one of the flats.
I got some 1" steel bar from the scrapyard today, round section, so I will give it a go if it ever stops pissing with rain! Forging
in a high wind isn't fun either...
Anthony January 19th, 2005, 03:44 PM

You can get nice steel tube, I was looking in the engineering workshop at work the other day - approx 10mm bore and similar
wall thickness. Can't remember if it was seamless, think it might have been. But even welded would probably do?
This may sound obvious, but have you tried a big metal supplier like Corrus? They mostly deal with trade accounts, but if you
speak to the right people they should be able to sort you out some off-cuts for cash. This stuff must come from somewhere!
More conventionally, RS do hydraulic steel tubing (must be seamless!) There are minimum quanities, but in the small sizes
the price still isn't too bad. From memory, the 6mm ID size has a bursting pressure of ~60Kpsi
I will be very interested in the results of your hot "drilling", and will be very impressed if you can produce a foot of barrel with a
a straght bore! The best I ever got was a deviation of about 2-3mm in a ~50mm length, with a cordless drill :)
Dave the Rave January 20th, 2005, 10:06 AM

JC, from I could find, the hydraulic hammer can also be set to push, and the anvil of the machine can hold the square tub so
it does not turn.
About the mandrell, I found an reference on an machinist book, but I cant scan right now, so Ill look for it on the net. the
mandrell uses its on guiding rods to rotate, so its no necessary to use an external tool.
Good luck on your forging and Ill search for references, as we need to discuss the rifling ideas to the hot drilled barrel.
akinrog January 20th, 2005, 12:40 PM

Almost a year ago, I watched on discovery a documentary related to guns of 1800. It stated that during that time there were
gunsmiths in military service to repair guns. Since there is no standard guns (all guns are unique since they are hand made),
the parts are not interchangable and a gunsmith is needed to repair guns.
Anyway the point is the documentary showed how guns are made during that time. The gunsmith was rolling a hot and thich
steel (iron?) plate around a round steel bar and fusing the edges rolled around the steel rod by hammering it hot. The
flintlock (its ancestors?) is said to be produced in this fashion. So I don't think hot forging or drilling is a bad procedure. But as
many experienced members stated the ammunition of that time was weaker than today's ammunition and it might be
dangerous to use such a barrel with modern ammo.
Only testing it may reveal its value and reliability. But something tingles in my mind. How one may keep the hot stock to be
drilled/forged steady? I mean since you drive the tool into it to create the bore, it might bend, tilt or move defeating the
procedure.
Dave the Rave January 21st, 2005, 12:22 PM

Akinrog, thats almost the same way they do the hammer forging, but the internal rod has grooves to make the rifling. Of
couse, the hot blanks isnt an plain sheet of steel, but instead its an seamless tube, sligth shorter and larger tha the final
barrel, so when hammered it goes longer and adjusts itself to the diameter of the final barrel.
I believe that to weaker charges or to black powder guns the plain sheet method works well, but to larger, stronger charges,
its necessary to use the hot drilling method.
As we spoke about short barrels, its easy to work only with teh hot drilling which is less time consuming and gives an better
final product.
Im about to get fired again, so I cant search more on the web, I beg the pardon of my forumates, but Ill have to give a
break on my searchings. ASAP Ill be back and post what I can found.
Regards.
akinrog January 21st, 2005, 05:30 PM

A theoretical thing came to my mind. What about casting that slightly larger barrel blank everybody (including me) referred to
above?
After casting it, it is feasible to apply hot hammer rifling method?
And anybody knows how drilling was made before barrel drilling machine is invented? I mean during early and (maybe late)
1800s, the modern barrel drilling machines were not present. And gunsmiths of that times were using a (maybe more
rudimentary) method to drill barrel bores.
Jacks Complete January 22nd, 2005, 10:38 AM

Dave, hot hammering is not easy. Well, ok, it is easy, but not to do well! Getting a good weld all the way along and round
without overly thinning the metal would be hard. Also, I would *really* not trust something that someone at my skill level did,
unless it started from a good piece of seamless tube - but if I had seamless tube, why would I risk wrecking it to hammer it? I
could just make the ammo to fit, since that is far easier (see the "case blowing/fire forming cartridge cases" thread)
The whole point of this idea is to NOT have to buy seamless tubeing from somewhere first.
I could, if I wanted, build a rifleing machine, and an extension to house it and the lathe. However, I am looking to get a very
much simpler process going.
The picture shows a press, not a hammer. The idea is to push through while the core of the metal is still soft as butter. The
bottom end is gripped, and the form is pushed by a ram right the way through. It *may* be possible to form a rifled barrel by
carefully twisting this form as it gets pushed through.
akinrog, if I were going to do that, I think it would be easier to simply cast a barrel around a rifled barrel form. However,
getting the pour just right on the steel would be hard, and I would be loathe to trust it. It would probably be quite different to
what you melted in the first place by the time you poured it, and it might wind up as brittle as cast iron. Which would be bad!
However, by getting a good bit of steel and taking that up to a high temperature, only the outside will be destroyed by heat,
firescale, etc. and the majority of the bar will still be good quality high strength steel.
Before the 1800's, barrels tend to have been either carefully drilled (just lower quality than more modern barrels) or simply
cast. Some were hot hammered around a mandrel, and the metal was called Damascus, wherein two different steels were
hammer welded together around the form. Damascus barrels, when done really well, are as strong as a modern barrel.
However, it is impossible to tell if they are perfectly welded all over, and so they are only used for shotguns. Only a few
talented smiths make knifes or barrels this way today. The earliest guns and cannons were cast, and I have seen
documentary evidence of how they failed! However, they didn't often have rifleing back then, and nor did they understand the
use of "chills" in casting.
EDIT: Wow, that was lucky! I got a "server too busy" message three times, and thought I had lost the above... Just kicked it
through 15 hours later!
akinrog January 24th, 2005, 07:19 PM

While searching about damascus steel, I came across the following book cover which (I believe) means making cannons in
damascus (I cannot speak French but I guess it is so).
Anybody can reach to this book.
http://damascus.free.fr/f_damas/f_hist/i_liege/liege.jpg The site has interesting information about damascus and wootz
steels, which renders it very valuable.
Edit Forgot to add actual URL (http://damascus.free.fr/f_damas/damas.htm)
Although off-topic this link (http://damascus.free.fr/f_damas/f_hist/perret.htm) from the site gives info how damascus steel is
made in 1700s. I hope the information given is inspiring.
Edit: While searching through over the net, I found another article related to RSP (Rapidliy Solidified Powder) metalurgical
method. WHile RSP is somewhat complicated for an amateur, the article gives hints how barrels are made during old times. I
cannot help quoting a part from the article regarding ancient method of making barrels (especially the part about damascene
barrels are very striking).
"Firearms were developed in the 1500s but over time, weapon smiths had problems making gun barrels capable of
withstanding increasing gunpowder loads: The original longitudinal forgeweld down the barrel length was a weak link," says
Billgren. During the 1700s damascene barrels developed in Turkey were forge welded as a spiral. The spiral weld increased the
strength in the transverse direction. The Damascus was made of soft iron and hardenable carburized steel. "The result was a
primitive toughhardening steel with a middle carbon content in the range of modern gun barrel steels. The spiral welding
turned the forging grain in a favorable direction and the resulting damascene pattern again served as a quality certificate
setting the damascene barrels apart and making them the barrel of choice throughout the 1800s," says Billgren.
Spiral forge welding maybe an option for creating barrels. However this process I think requires delicate forging skills.
Edit : I also forgot to add URL (http://www.machinedesign.com/ASP/viewSelectedArticle.asp?

strArticleId=57611&strSite=MDSite&catId=0) of this quote

Yup, making a Damascus barrel is like making a chain - it might look solid, but it is as strong as the weakest weld! The issue
is that you need to be really, really sure you are getting a good forge weld all the way, or else it will fail, and kill or maim you.
You need to know your fluxes and your steels, as well as be able to forge weld well before even trying.
akinrog February 1st, 2005, 11:29 PM

When I review the last link I gave, I saw an image (at the right) which describes evolution of barrel making.
According to this image, I had the impression that the latest gun barrel making technology involves swirling of the hot
(molten??) barrel while drilling it. This makes the grains traverse.
I hope this does not sound kewlish. But how about using a really strong plastic for disposable barrels. AFAIK, UHMWPE (Ultra
High Molecular Weight Polyethylene - aka the material which Spectra Armor Plates are made) is used for armoring vehicles and
bulletproof vests. This plastic is very though but thermoplastic (which renders it useless for reusable barrel, but I believe it
may withstand a few shots).
This type of barrel may be a candidate for disposable assassination weapons.

How about this idea?
Jacks Complete February 2nd, 2005, 05:42 PM

Not bad. Make a laminate barrel, too, with something like a fibre-wrapped thin walled tube.
Tree trunks work quite well.
Heck, there is even the "cardboard disposable shotgun".
Just use a low load in the cartridge (if you bother with one) and make it single shot with several barrels. You could probably
cast one out of a tough thermoplastic, so you had a pepperpot type of affair. It would probably pass inspection more easily
like that, since it wouldn't be metal, wouldn't look like a barrel, and could, in fact, look like a toy.
As far as I know, the latest technology is to hammer the metal cold, so it workhardens, and this produces good cheap barels.
Hot hammering was used before the lathe became a big thing, a long time ago.
prespec April 2nd, 2007, 06:04 AM

Hardness is not a requirement in a barrel, 28 Rockwell C is adequate, 32 is better. Toughness and ductility are useful
attributes, abrasion resistance too.
Most ordnance steels fulfil these requirements......416RBS stainless, 4140, and many others.
Ductilty is useful to achieve a smooth finish, toughness to resist 45-55,000 psi pressures at the chamber and abrasion
resistance to mitigate throat erosion from propellant gasses.
Hammer forgeing is a popular commercial method, but set-up costs are high.
These barrels will often exhibit a wash-board effect internally, which has no apparent effect on accuracy.
Button rifling is the method of choice for match barrels, and most benchrest shooters will use these. It offers uniformity of twist
rate and is better suited to the requirements of custom barrel makers. Tooling is still quite sophisticated an in general, pull-
buttoning gives a better result than push buttoning.
Cut or broached rifling can be done with fairly basic gear and is probably the oldest method. Many passes with a light cut will
do it just fine , but twist-rate variations are common.
All of these can produce a tack-driver, when done well.
Many long-rifle barrels were made in two longitudinal halves, which had been chiseled to form a lengthwise groove, fire-welded
(forged) together, than susequently drilled, reamed, then cut-rifled.
These were subjected to pressures around 12.000 psi , and were more than adequate , but would fail under the pressure
modern smokeless cartridges generate.
I would like to continue this discussion, provided I don't get banned as a presumptious newbie. I may have things to
contribute, and really enjoy the site.
We shall see in a day or so.
Jacks Complete April 3rd, 2007, 07:38 PM

Not been banned yet, as far as I can see. And that's a fairly good first post.
However, hardness *is* required. Not too hard, though. What you want is a very hard inner liner to the barrel, to protect the
throat and bore from friction erosion from the passage of the bullet. If it was too thick, you would get cracking due to the
thermal stresses. Beyond that, you want a high strength, tough barrel. Ideally, a crystalline barrel would be perfect, as long as
you were sure it couldn't shatter, as the dimensionallity would never change.
I've not heard about two halves of a barrel being stuck long-ways. Got any references for that? You might be thinking of
damacus-style barrels, which were formed from two forge weleded bits of steel, one hard and one ductile, to make a tough
mixture, which was hot hammered and forge welded around a mandrel. This was used on old shotguns, but had a high failure
rate, caused often by electrochemical erosion at the welded steel seams, some time down the line.
prespec April 4th, 2007, 06:09 AM

Hardness in steel is relative, ie., that which is suitable for wearing parts... 50-55c,....sears and the like, which is usually too
hard for stressed parts like barrels. As the hardness increases , the brittleness asserts too, along with absolute tensile
strength.
However, wear resistance to throat erosion from powder gasses and primer residue seems to be pretty well met by good
ordnance steels in the low to mid 30's.
The passing of the rifling button seems to work-harden the surfaces to a degree too.
Some barrelmakers have used annealed 416 stainless, and this can go as low as near mild-steel. It makes a great looking
tube , but will burn out quickly and, in a real high-pressure cartridge, the chamber can deform.
As to the longitudinal barrel technique, it is not a construct of my mind, and if you will give me a few days I shall find the
reference material. I am well aware of the Damascus process and am not confusing the two.
These early barrels I am describing were made out of iron and , in the context of this discussion, the carbon content was
negligable, and , as you are probably aware, wrought or forged iron has entirely different properties from steel, and cast iron.
It exhibits toughness and the ability to be joined by the hammer and anvil, to the point where it can be considered
homogenous.
It also resists corrosion better than many modern steels. In fact the phrase "modern steel" is an oxymoron, as true steels
were accidental in any significant quantity the Western world until the late 19th century.
I shall still find the reference book....even now it sits crated in my shed... having just moved. I think it is called ," A Guide to
Blacksmithing" or similar and was published in the the 1950's.
BTW....I lost count of the barrels I have chambered, threaded, and fitted, somewhere in between 600 and 1000.
Jacks Complete April 6th, 2007, 08:19 AM

However, wear resistance to throat erosion from powder gasses and primer residue seems to be pretty well met by good
ordnance steels in the low to mid 30's.Hmmm... If you consider 1000 rounds before accuracy drops off to be "pretty well",
perhaps, but there is a reason why even shotguns have hard chrome liners these days, and it isn't just corrosion afterwards.
BTW....I lost count of the barrels I have chambered, threaded, and fitted, somewhere in between 600 and 1000.I could be a
little sarcastic and suggest that if you use a slightly hard steel, you wouldn't have to keep re-chambering them! However, I'll
stick a smiley on the end for you ;-)
That sort of number indicates you to be a gunsmith, or a very heavily involved US pro-am. There are full-time UK gunsmiths
who won't have done that many in ten years of trading, if they have even done one in house, rather than shipping them off to
a third party, or just bought them in as replacements.
I can tell you are going to be a useful person on the forum.
Please do find the longditudinal info, I'd be very interested.

prespec April 6th, 2007, 06:22 PM
Herewith link to the relevant pages from " The Art of Blacksmithing" , Alex W Bealer, 1976,1969, ISBN 0-7858-0395-5.
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n52/prespec/Rotationofbarrel2-1.jpg
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n52/prespec/Rotationofbarrel1-1.jpg
You will notice they differ in some particulars from the process I described, thus proving memory to be a frail thing, but is
essentially the same.
I hope this is of use to you and if any difficulty is had with accessing these links, I can PM you a PDF file.
As to the hardness figures stated, these are typical of good stainless barrels, the annealed steels referred to barely making
the C scale.
With properly loaded ammunition , in quite high-velocity chamberings, it would not be unreasonable to expect a useful barrel
life of 3000-4000 rounds, possibly quite a bit less for extreme match accuracy, and high-intensity chamberings, and somewhat
more for hunting requirements.
However, too much of the wrong powder can cause serious throat erosion after several hundred rounds. And more barrels are
ruined by careless or total lack of cleaning, than by normal use.
BTW... I have noticed these pages appear to be of low quality, and I shall get up to speed with posting attachments on this
forum after this weekend.
Skean Dhu April 12th, 2007, 09:56 PM

After reading your post and much pondering. I theorized one could could Draw a tube out over a mandrel after heating and
then using a tap of sorts simply create the rifling grooves in the barrel.
There are also a number of patents that could prove to be useful in creating the effect you want.
US patent 5,438,858 creates a rod with internal helical bore holes
US patent 5,533,375 creates a seamless tube from hollow billets
and if you use the search functions on www.USPTO.gov and enter the following parameters
CCL/72/264, CCL/72/263, CCL/72/265, CCL/72/266, CCL/72/269, CCL/72/274, CCL/72/276, and/or CCL/72/286 you will find
numerous patents dealing with the drawing of metals through various dies and over mandrels with different results. Surely one
of the above will either allow duplication exactly or inspire the modification to suit your needs.
Jacks Complete April 16th, 2007, 01:47 PM

prespec, thanks for the scans. High enough quality for me to read every word!
I have seen the coiled form before, but never the single part welded around a mandrel. I might have to try that. The scarfed
version would seem to be a good idea too, as it would take somewhat less skill to achieve a good result with that.
I'm not sure I trust my (forge) welding anything like enough to trust it to a barrel, but for a more experianced smith it would
probably be an afternoons work.
prespec April 16th, 2007, 05:03 PM

Not a recommended technique for modern ammo with smokeless powder.
Even the mildest steel with a hole drilled and then reamed would be far safer, provided it was thick enough in the chamber
area.
The process of crude rifling is described elsewhere on this forum, but it is easily enough done with some basic machine tools.
wolfy9005 July 6th, 2007, 05:40 AM

If you could somehow make a ceramic "cylinder" which is capped at one end, and perfectly smooth you could make your own
seamless tubing. It just involves the moving of the ceramic bit(or anything else that can withstand molten steel), and pouring
it into the mold slowly until the desired thickness and length is aquired. I'll do a bit of research, and if i find time ill post my
finding.
The barrel punch idea would work, but the "blank" would have to be kept hot for the whole time, then tempered/annealed(the
strengthening one, i cant remember). To keep it hot your could use gas "jets", or maybe an oxy-acetylene torch. If you dont,
the bottom will cool too quickly, and the whole process will stop. Do some tests with making 1",2",3",4" and 5" barrels from low
quality steel(mild steel) to perfect the idea. Mild steel is cheap(ish) and has roughly the same properties(and density) as say,
stainless steel.
Thats all for now.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > bullet accuracy?
Log in
View Full Version : bullet accuracy?
FUTI January 17th, 2005, 08:43 PM

Reading a thread about making barrels I got nice idea but since it was very much of topic I choose to start new thread. I don't know much about this area so it is maybe
irrelevant, but anyway...
Here it is...I remember that there was a solution that make tank cannons projectile more accurate. It consisted on the fact that projectile leaving the bored barrel will have
momentum, and that was corrected by using a small plastic wing end that used wings to give the projecile the momentum in the opposite direction in the second half of the
trajectory. Given the diferences in size that can influence aerodynamics of the projectiles is something similar possible/necessary with rifle bullets?
tomu January 17th, 2005, 10:03 PM

Are you talking about saboted rounds, usually Kinetic Energy projectiles which have have fins?
The only thing which comes to my mind are flechettes which are used mostly in shot gun ammo. There are some rare, more or less collector pieces, modified Mod. 1911 A1
pistols the OSS/CIA fouled around with which shoot arrows stabilized by fins.
FUTI January 21st, 2005, 09:21 AM

Yes I thought about that. Is there any benefit with that approach? I just can't make my mind on that subject. It should be some benefit in accuracy, but I assume that also
there is going to be reduction of velocity so maybe kinetic energy can be smaller. In tank projectile that doesn;t matter since its payload is HE charge, but rifle ammo... Is
there any study of that kind known to you? Accuracy or kinetic energy...what is valued most in rifle use?
SweNMFan January 21st, 2005, 02:13 PM

Swedish army snipers have a sub caliber 7.62x51mm round that is used in the the swedish version of the Accuracy International L96A1 AW.. It is a 4,81mm tungsten sabot with
a V0 of 1340mps instead of the regular 785mps.. It is Winchester developed and made..
Usally its named 7.62 SLAP, (Saboted light armour piercing) or M948 in US inventory and there is .50cal SLAP rounds as well..
In tank projectile that doesn;t matter since its payload is HE charge
The tank sabot rounds do not have any explosives in them. They are kinetic penetrators.
A HE or HEAT round have parts attached ot them to make them spin even in a smoothbore barrel .
Accuracy or kinetic energy...what is valued most in rifle use?
For a sniper accuracy, not much point in having massive kinetic enery and not being able to hit a barn with it.. :p
Jacks Complete January 22nd, 2005, 11:25 AM

And for a tank-killer, massive kinetic energy, since the target is quite big.
Range would be quite important there, too. Every step closer to the enemy you have to go, the more likely you are to be in range for him!
FUTI February 4th, 2005, 02:49 PM

I agree SweNMFan, but as you see from posts other made here, I have some doubts. Air rifle where used in old days as sniper weapon of choice due to precision.
But there is now two problems more. First target can have bullet-proof vest reducing the posibility of efficient hit which can cause at least reduction in your targeting to few
unshielded spots (solution A) or you need bullet with higher energy to penetrate the vest (solution B). Second problem is that range of weapon is higher if it has more kinetic
energy related to bullet initial velocity at gun mouth - I hope this is the term used.
So if the technical mean used to improve bullet accuracy reduce its range meaning that enemy sniper has not-so-small advantage, I would feel uncomfortable using it, and if it
also reduce its penetration/hit ability I would abandon the use of it. And I'm afraid that is exactly the case with the solution I describe at the begining. I wish someone can
improve my observation on this and prove the opposite.
So far this thread show that noone here didn't stumbled over some study made in this subject...but I have hope:)
Jacks Complete February 13th, 2005, 01:20 PM

FUTI,
a high-powered air rifle, with a silencer, would be superb, since there is no muzzle flash, no smoke, no IR trace, not even a loud cough noise! The only thing that could
determine where you were would be a radar based system, or, after the fact, putting a rod in the hole.
You could, perhaps, defeat the radar system by use of a radar absorbant coating, since it wouldn't burn off with the shot.
You could get very close. 50 yards, perhaps, and ensure you get the kill. You would be well within range of anything the target had then, though.
I would want the usual combo, which is great accuracy, followed by lots of power. Accuracy *always* comes first, though. A .22 to the head is far more likely to kill than a .50
to the hand. A .50 to the head, however...
One way to increase accuracy, at the expense of a little range, is to not put every last drop of power into the rifle cartridge. Backing off a little often helps increase the accuracy
by a long way, and you are only losing a few hundred feet per second on a rifle round.
Microtek February 14th, 2005, 06:18 AM

SweNMfan: Actually, even modest rotation drastically reduces the effectiveness of HEAT rounds. I think there was a system working the other way, that is a freely sliding sabot
so you could fire a fin-stabilized system from a rifled barrel.
Regarding the use of aerodynamic stabilisation of small arms projectiles, there is the problem that the effects of fins don't scale, so you need a certain minimum caliber for it to
be effective. I don't know what caliber that would be though ( I'm guessing something like .50 cal ).
There was however, a patent about a tranquilizer system which fired very thin projectiles ( 1 mm diameter, 15 mm long and with the center of gravity lying less than 30 % of
the projectile length from the tip ) from a smoothbore weapon.
They conjectured that it would be possible to scale the gun up as long as the projectile dimensions were scaled as well.
FUTI February 24th, 2005, 05:27 PM

Microtek you maybe corrected me with last statement. If I understand your post right then mine previous assumption that counter-rotation of sabot in downward/second part of
trajectory (caused by fins made in such way to use air flow to create resisting angular momentum - something like curved ball - felsh or something- I will start to learn ordinary
English terms, chemical language is of little help here) is used to correct the error caused by fireing sabot from rifled barrel is completely wrong. I thank you for this, I never
look at this matter the way you did:). I only modestly ask you can you back that with some paper, link, document or something because both of us are burning our brain cells
to extract some long forgoten back-ups of data from time when there was no W&E Forum for brainstorming activity.
Jacks Complete February 24th, 2005, 08:10 PM
I know it is true about rapid rotation killing jet formation in shaped charges.
You are trying to throw it together, but the rotation is trying to throw it outwards. It will amplify any mass errors.
A slow rotation, say a few hertz or less, I'm not so sure about. I've seen slow-mo footage of shaped charge warheads spinning into the target at slow rates, about half a turn
per length travelled.
Remember, stability by rotation for a bullet requires spin rates that would be insane anywhere else.

The tank guns you refer to are smoothbore, so require fin stalbilisation to avoid projectile yaw, and most are wire-guided .
Rifle bullets are stabilised by the rifling, and require a certain RPM to stay that way , which is in direct proportion to their length.
A longer bullet of a given diameter will require a faster twist-rate to stabilise it, but is more efficient , due to it's greater sectional density.
The RPM is governed by the rifling twist and the muzzle velocity.
Other factors contribute to its ability to maintain velocity, including ogive and tail design.
When a bullet passes back down through the sound barrier , it can lose stability also......that is why boat-tail bullets work well past the 600-800 yd mark in normal military/
hunting calibres. The boat-tail reduces drag and is more important in the lower speed ranges.
The idea of fins on rifle bullets would seem to be in conflict with these requirements, especially the need to maintain rotation at longer ranges.

No, the tank guns aren't all fin stabilised, not always. The UK Challenger tank guns are 120mm rifled barrels. TOW type missiles are wire guided, but they aren't 'bullets' from a
gun, they are a neat way to use the gun as a missile launcher.
Firing a saboted round designed to stop spin is a good idea, otherwise the bullets fins would be ripped off or flattened instantly it hit the air outside the barrel. Something like
1% of a bullet's energy is stored in the spin. The reduced drag of the sabotted projectile would be made up for slightly by the increased drag of the fins on said projectile.
amachinist April 3rd, 2007, 08:06 PM

I know this thread is geared more toward cannon barrels, rifle and pistol barrel accuracy is also affected by the quality of the crown and the last couple of inches of rifling near
the muzzle.
prespec April 4th, 2007, 08:27 AM

I know this thread is geared more toward cannon barrels, rifle and pistol barrel accuracy is also affected by the quality of the crown and the last couple of inches of rifling near
the muzzle.
Nicely stated. It is the most critical area in an un-guided projectiles journey.
Far more influential than the throat, as it is the last point of contact with the weapon, so any inconsistancy here will allow propellant gasses, travelling at several thousand FPS
faster, to impart 'tip' or yaw to the projectiles path.
Look after your crown.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > New firearm for UK police
Log in
View Full Version : New firearm for UK police
Jacks Complete March 4th, 2005, 10:31 PM

Spotted this in the Mail, and on line:
---
This from the Wired-Gov w eb site at http://www .wired-gov.org/WGArticle.aspx?WCI=htmArticleView &WCU=ARTCL% 5FPKEY%3D30212
Date: March 02, 2005

Time: 14:15
MOD POLICE TAKES DELIVERY OF 21ST CENTURY WEAPON
MOD Police has become the first force in the country to take delivery of a new generation of firearm.
It has ordered the Heckler & Koch MP7 carbine follow ing rigorous tests to uncover the most suitable w eapon for its armed guarding duties in the 21st century.
No other organisation in the United Kingdom is currently using the MP7 w hich was made to fulfil a NATO demand for a light small accurate weapon w hich can penetrate
sophisticated body armour.
The firearm w ill be known within the MOD Police (MDP) as the Utility Weapon and will replace the majority of the three different weapons currently used by officers. These are
the Browning pistol, the SA80 assault rifle and the Heckler and Koch MP5.
It w ill be used by officers w ho protect a variety of MOD establishments across the United Kingdom against armed attack.
The MDP is the only force to have all of its 3,440 officers trained in the use of firearms, and at any one time some 70 per cent of them are carrying a weapon w hilst on duty.
Assistant Chief Constable John Bligh, Director of Operational Support for the MDP, said: "Our officers work at 100 different MOD sites across the United Kingdom in a wide range
of roles, so it makes sense for us to have a very adaptable w eapon.
"The MP7 was the only firearm w e tested which could fulfil all of our criteria and be used successfully within a w ide variety of our policing operations.
"Among its many advantages are that it is more accurate than a pistol and has a low recoil action. Its power ratio also means that, w hilst it can penetrate body armour, it will
not pass right through a target.
"There are also very significant benefits to be made in only having to train our people in one firearm system rather than three. As well as the obvious cost benefit this w ill also
boost officer safety due to their increased familiarity with the weapon."
He said the MDP had w orked closely with the Defence Procurement Agency and Heckler and Koch during the development and testing of the weapon for its suitability.
"We asked for a number of modifications to increase its suitability for the roles in which we use it," he said. "Our officers patrol both on land and at sea, and can be called upon
to work in a variety of environments, such as within naval warships."
Among the changes made to the MP7 were the removal of its fully automatic and semi-automatic firing modes so that it will only fire a single shot at a time. This ensures that
the gun meets legislation requirements on the proportionality of a police response if the w eapon is fired.
MDP officers are currently undergoing training in the use of the new w eapon and it will be rolled out across the country later in the year. The total cost of the project, including
ammunition for three years, is around 3 million.
However the weapon is also likely to result in a 42 per cent reduction in the cost of on-going firearms training for officers, a saving of more than 300,000 a year.
More than 1,500 MP7s have been ordered by the MDP although small numbers of the force's current weapons will be retained for very specialist operations.
Although the MDP is the first force in the country to take delivery of the MP7 many other constabularies are follow ing developments and have expressed an interest in it.
MP7 Facts
Designed to meet NATO demands for a new personal defence weapon w hich has the medium range capabilities of an assault rifle and pistol-like close combat dimensions.
A new 4.6mm calibre of bullet has been specially created for the w eapon and it has less than half the recoil of a 9mm gun.
Features include: a retractable stock, ambidextrous cocking and decocking, mountings for various sights, and a folding foregrip for extra control.
Statistics
Magazine capacity: 20 or 40 bullets

Modes of fire: single shot only (MDP specification)
Width: 42mm
Height: 172mm
Weight: 1.5kg
Barrel length: 180mm
Overall length: 340mm or 540mm with stock extended
END
Notes for Editors
The Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) is a civilian Police force, operating across the MOD estate.
Press Office
Room 15 Building 1070 MDPGA HQ Wethersfield
Braintree Essex CM7 4AZ
Or this one also from Wired-gov at http://www.wired-gov.org/WGArticle.aspx?WCI= htmArticleView&WCU=ARTCL%5FPKEY%3D30206
Date: March 02, 2005

Time: 12:15
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE POLICE TO GET NEW SPECIALISED FIREARM
The Ministry of Defence has procured a new w eapon for the Ministry of Defence Police force, making them better equipped than ever for the important role they play.
A 3.4 million contract w ill see more than 1,500 Heckler & Koch MP7 firearms delivered to MoD Police, who provide armed security for military installations across the country,
including the guarding of Britain's nuclear deterrent.
Ministry of Defence Police Officers are currently equipped with the 9mm Browning Pistol and the military-issue SA80. The SA80, a battle-proven military assault rifle, is not ideally
suited for use by MoD police w ho are deployed in defence environments in the UK.
The pistol, which has been in service since 1979, becomes less accurate at long range and cannot defeat today's latest body armour.
Defence Minister Ivor Caplin MP said: " It is essential that these officers, w ho police everything from residential camps to our sensitive research and development centres, are
equipped with the most suitable firearm for their jobs.
"The team at the Defence Procurement Agency carried out an exhaustive series of tests before this w eapon was selected, and the MP7 proved to be the very best available.
"What's more, an innovative approach to this procurement, w hich sees the UK Division of Heckler & Koch look after weapon support and logistics, is estimated to save around
250,000 a year until 2008 - another example of 'smart' procurement.
"Indeed, this project has been so successful that other UK Police Constabularies have been paying close attention to our results, with a view to possibly using them to inform
their own future firearm procurement decisions."
Tests proved that the new firearm can penetrate body armour, yet the round will not 'overpenetrate' causing a danger to bystanders. It is also light, easily maintained and
simple to use and, after training, will be delivered to Ministry of Defence Police Officers across the country, replacing both the Browning pistol and the SA80.
ENDS
Notes to Editors
1 The project is scheduled to achieve its In Service Date (ISD) in April - two months ahead of the estimated timing.
2 The MP7 is manufactured by Heckler and Koch of Germany. The weapon specific 4.6mm ammunition w ill be provided by UK manufacturer Royal Ordnance Radw ay Green.
3 The 'smart' nature of this project will see weapons remain under manufacturer warranty for ten years - a first w ithin small arms procurement. The exact history of each
weapon w ill be tracked and monitored. The expected service life is 15 years.
4 More than 1,500 systems are being procured. Final delivery from the manufacturer will be made in June 2005.
5 The Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) is the MOD's own dedicated civil Police Force of around 3,800 officers, all of them having full Constabulary powers. They provide armed
security, uniformed policing and investigation of serious crime at MOD establishments and units throughout the United Kingdom. As a condition of service every officer is
weapons-trained and at any one time 70 per cent of MDP officers on duty carry arms, either pistols or rifles. These are deployed at around 100 MOD sites where an armed
security capability is required.
---
So the MoD Police have adopted the 4.6mm HK MP7 to replace the Browning 9mm pistol, 9mm HK MP5 and 5.56mm SA80/L85 rifle.
An innovative choice if nothing else. Not sure what they need AP bullets for, generally, but there you go. I handled one of these once, back in the day.
I'm pretty sure someone high up in HK/BAe sw ung this one w ith the MOD Plod, since not one order has ever been placed for this weapon. There is no civilian market, it is utterly
untested outside the range (to my knowledge) but I w ouldn't say no to one!
The Mail mentions the steel AP rounds, btw , as well as talking about how every police force in the UK is going to be kitted out w ith these instead of the three w eapons they
currently carry, the 9mm MP5, the SA80 or G3 in 5.56, and the 9mm Browning.
So they will have body armour and a team for back-up, plus a carbine that will shoot through body armour, whilst you will have a pocket knife and navel lint... :mad:
malzraa March 5th, 2005, 01:39 AM

Heh, that isthe SMG from Half-Life 2. If only it actually came with a grenade launcher...
Silentnite March 5th, 2005, 02:44 AM

I tried both of those links and neither one showed a picture for me. So after a little searching I found this (http://defensereview.com/modules.php?
name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=9). It has pictures and apparently some vids of them shooting it. Neat looking though. I want one. :p
malzraa March 7th, 2005, 02:13 PM

http://ww w.hkpro.com/pdw.htm HKPRO's excellent article on the MP7.


Third_Rail March 8th, 2005, 11:34 AM

This is strange.. w hy are they mechanically limited to semi-auto?



Because even the UK government realise that having cops running round on full-auto would be a disaster!
The testing range was using full-auto, and the standard model is full and semi (oddly, no burst) fire capable.


Third_Rail March 8th, 2005, 04:28 PM

I don't really see how having a fully automatic firearm would be a problem to anyone with training in their use. Perhaps it's a money-saving idea, so as to not have to train
them in the use of trigger control for 2-3 round bursts?



Politically, it would destroy the divide betw een the State actors (soldiers) and the Public (police).
Of course, everyone knows the idea of policing by consent now only exists so the police have an easier time of it when things are going their way - they just crack heads when
things aren't going their w ay, and get new laws passed if they don't like the lack of "consent" they get. http://w ww.techhelpers.net/e4u/aliens/borg_assimilation_faces.gif


shadow2501 March 9th, 2005, 07:30 AM

well.....i don't get the point using a machine pistol with semi and full auto mode removed since the new H&K UCP pistol that use the very same 4.6mm ammo just came
out,the MP7 have folding stock and may be more accurate but as a one by one shot weapon it's just a big weird shaped pistol maybe they'll juste replace MP5 by MP7 and
Browning by UCP later who know s, removing full auto from this cute little MP7 is a sin anyway :(


Flake2m March 9th, 2005, 11:29 AM

Training w ise it shouldn't really make a difference.
A well trained marksmen could empty a 20 round clip in a few seconds, even with single shot semi auto.
Also the only advantage a fully automatic weapon has over a single shot, is that it can fire off more bullets in less time. Semi auto also allows for greater control over the
weapon.

weapon.

weapon.
nbk2000 March 11th, 2005, 06:27 PM

How many cops are going to get killed for their guns? :)
nbk2000 March 11th, 2005, 06:27 PM

nbk2000 March 11th, 2005, 06:27 PM


Not enough...
words, obviously.

Not enough...
words, obviously.

Not enough...
words, obviously.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > DREAD - a revolutionary new
weapon system
Log in
View Full Version : DREAD - a revolutionary new weapon system

Well, here's a new one!
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/
srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,520,169.WKU.&OS=PN/6,520,169&RS=PN/6,520,169
United States Patent 6,520,169

St. George February 18, 2003
Weapon for centrifugal propulsion of projectiles
Abstract
A weapon for centrifugally discharging projectiles at a rapid rate comprising a housing in which is rotatably mounted a disc
having a multiplicity of feed channels extending radially therein. Each of the feed channels receives a multiplicity of projectiles
and is configured to orient the projectiles in a single file adjacent the disc periphery of the disc projectile locking means. Each
of the channels has located adjacent the periphery disc a multiplicity of stops movable between a first position within the
channel to preclude movement of the outermost projectile outwardly of the channel and a second position removed from the
channel to permit movement of a projectile thereby. Locking cams move the stops between the first and second positions, and
other came actuate the locking cams as the disc rotates to move the outermost stop into the second position and release the
outermost projectile while the adjacent stop restrains the adjacent projectile, which is thereafter released to move outwardly
until restricted by the first stop. The projectiles are released into a guide rail extending substantially about the periphery of the
disc and the guide having a discharge opening therein.
Inventors: St. George; Charles W. (Avon, CT)
Assignee: Trinamic Technologies, LLC (West Hartford, CT)
Appl. No.: 795807
Filed: February 28, 2001
Current U.S. Class: 124/6

Intern'l Class: F41B 003/04
Field of Search: 124/6,45,48,51.1,82
More (an article plus video) here: http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=526
---
Basically, this is a centrifuge for ball bearings.
A very high powered one, but still... Claiming a top speed of 8000fps/2500m/s in .3" up to .5", jam proof, high RoF, etc.
From my calculations, the form of the equation that describes it is
Vel = Pi x D xRPM/60
Use metric!
For a Vel of 2450m/s, you need a disc diameter of 60cm, and an RPM of 77985!
I doubt these speeds will be reached any time soon. That's 1300 revolutions per second! Then you have to add your ball
bearings, which is easy to do with a hopper that feeds through the upper axel, which is hollow for this very purpose.
You have several feed lines which spiral from the center to the outside edge, either straight, for the edge velocity to equal the
projectile velocity, or, if you curve it forwards, you will find that the projectile velocity will exceed the edge velocity.
Once clear of the edge, the projectiles reach a guidance strip, which runs around the outside edge, and is as close to a barrel
as this design needs. It simply catches the balls and lets them go round until they exit at the mouth, flying then towards the
target.
Predictably, balancing will be tricky. Bearing just can't cope with that sort of speed and take a load at the same time. Until it is
spun up, it will be useless. Gyro forces will rip it to shreds, and if that disc fails, you are cut in half. Loss of power means that
after a few shots you will run out of KE in your projectiles.
However, for certain tasks, like avoiding firearms laws, this might be very useful! It has no barrel, therefore is outside the
current UK law.
Also, for point defence, it would be ideal, as long as a high current power source remains. You just add 300,000 BBs and away
you go! :eek:


Abstract
Appl. No.: 795807

Field of Search: 124/6,45,48,51.1,82
---
Use metric!
target.
current UK law.
you go! :eek:


Abstract
Appl. No.: 795807

Field of Search: 124/6,45,48,51.1,82

---
Use metric!
target.
current UK law.
you go! :eek:
Skean Dhu May 27th, 2005, 04:40 PM

If your going to use BBs(ie, daisy .177/4.5mm BBs) then you could use a device called a 'strafer' or another design 'cloud'
both were designed by members of the spudtech forum. they are relativly simple to construct due to the lack of moving parts ,
but require a large air resevior, such as a high-flow air compressor.
These things have RoFs around 80 rounds/sec and can go higher if you use more pressure . The destruction dealt by a strafer
or cloud BBMG is awesome. An entire phonebook was obliterated(sp?) in under a minute.


Bigfoot May 27th, 2005, 05:51 PM

PMJB, vol 2 (IIRC) details this type of device. Single projo channel, but +/- same idea.
So his innovation was...multiple channels?


nbk2000 May 27th, 2005, 06:08 PM

I was thinking the same thing about the PMJB!
Perhaps someone should inform the USPTO about this 'prior art', and get this lames patent pulled! :mad:
The one thing that it would be good for is that, since the ammo is feed from the center, and the firing ports are at the rim, by
opening shutters at various points along the rim, you can fire at multiple targets at the same time, without having to re-orient
a barrel. :)
I also like the Hi-Tek method they used to obscure the address and fax number...a blue ball-point pen scratched over the
info. :p
Real security from a real company! :D
This has got to be vapor-ware.
nbk2000 May 27th, 2005, 06:08 PM

a barrel. :)
info. :p
nbk2000 May 27th, 2005, 06:08 PM

a barrel. :)
info. :p
malzraa May 27th, 2005, 07:45 PM

I had a video demo of that weapon a while back if I recall. Very interesting. If it does use centrifuge design, there must either
be some force pulling the balls towards the center, or extremely durable walls. If it just uses strong walls to contain the spin,
you would think that would lead to issues with friction. I wonder if anything provides the angular momentum other than just a
spinning disk?

spinning disk?

spinning disk?
megalomania May 28th, 2005, 05:31 PM

I do believe the centrifuges they use for seperating uranium isotopes can spin up to 80,000 rpm. Such high speed centrifuges
are also illegal because of their dual use potential.
I was also thinking of the design in the PMJB. I wonder what exactly the purpose of this weapon is? If you have the money and
resources dosen't a conventional firearm make more sense?


xyz May 28th, 2005, 09:01 PM

Kurt Saxon didn't go into much detail for precisely that reason Mega, that a conventional firearm is easier to acquire or
manufacture.
He mentioned centrifugal guns pretty much as a curiosity, and also because they aren't (yet) regulated by any firearms laws.
xyz May 28th, 2005, 09:01 PM

manufacture.
xyz May 28th, 2005, 09:01 PM

manufacture.

Yes, freedom from the law is quite useful. While it lasts...
Other advantages are the lack of firing signature(s), the variable level of lethality due to changing the spin speed (not instant,
but quite quick), ease of manufacture (people ask questions about anything barrel like) and the lack of wear nad high
pressures.
I'm going to try building one. I've not got anything amazingly fast, but a cirucular saw does 4500rpm, which I work out to be
an edge speed of 188 m/s on an 80cm disc. With the normal sized disc (185mm) it would be just 43.5 m/s. It scales up well!

pressures.

pressures.
Sparky May 30th, 2005, 02:32 AM

When thinking about high speed electrical motors, woodworking routers come to mind quickly.
They are easily available and the motor comes in a convenient form. By convenient I mean that a router is a very simple
device, and would lend itself well to adaptation. A quick internet search reveals examples of variable speed models that go up
to 25 000 rpm (2 hp).
With a 30 cm radius this brings the edge speed to 786 m/s, which is reasonably good.
Oops, just found this by accident. It's an article about the DREAD system:
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_DREAD,,00.html
The article (well, inventor) claims that the product is not vaporware at all. The part about no recoil enabling it to be fired in
space without altering paths is obviously bogus though, since momentum is stilll conserved.
A problem I see is when a round is fired, the thing is unbalanced all of a sudden. At such high speeds, I could see this being
pretty bad. The rounds have to be added properly maybe, to counterbalance. Some sort of shock to the system seem hard to
avoid though, since timing would have to be impeccable.

to 25 000 rpm (2 hp).

to 25 000 rpm (2 hp).
Cyclonite May 30th, 2005, 06:43 PM

This sounds alot like a newer active tracking mine dispenser.....is this what the patent is referring too?
Well they arent anywhere close to that speed so i guees not


nbk2000 May 31st, 2005, 07:35 PM

If the thing had two firing ports on opposing sides, then it could be recoiless in space, as it could fire two rounds in opposite
directions, each negating the others recoil. This assumes that the target is not directly in line with a 'friendly' assest that gets
killed by the recoil shot. :p
Angle grinders come to mind for easy centrifuges. A 9" goes at least 6,500RPM, and it's got torque to spare, and a ready-
made mounting system for a disk. :)
Even if you're not throwing balls at hypersonic speeds, a 3/8" steel bearing at 400 FPS would be more than enough to fuck
someone up, especially if you're throwing dozens per second.
Short range, high volume, saturation fire. :) Just the thing for sweeping wild boar from the bushes around your house. ;)
nbk2000 May 31st, 2005, 07:35 PM

nbk2000 May 31st, 2005, 07:35 PM

Jacks Complete June 1st, 2005, 06:30 PM

Even with a port on either side, the weapon is no use in space.
Basically, the torque will kill you! You are talking about a giant disc that pushes hard against objects that are being thrown far
away at speed. This results in a push backwards. If you cancel this with another ball in the opposite direction, it will stop the
recoil.
However...
To start the machine up, you are spinning a disc up to a high speed, and that torque has to go somewhere, so your entire
craft will start to rotate against the disc. Conservation of angular momentum is exactly the same as linear. Your spaceship
starts to spin, and you will have to balance that with a rocket burn. Every time you fire (two) balls, you will have to fire the
rockets again, since the spin imparted to the balls will also affect your ship.
Of course, if you mounted several at different angles, you could use them for energy storage, attitude adjustment, spin
stabilisation, and all-round defensive weapons. Quite a useful thing to have, on a space craft, but if it breaks, that's a lot of
vital systems that are gone!

recoil.
However...

recoil.
However...
FUTI June 2nd, 2005, 07:10 AM

Where did you find the info about range? I was looking for it but didn't have luck.
Interesting concept but I'm little sceptic...new ideas are hard to catch on if you are getting old.


Jacks Complete June 3rd, 2005, 09:05 PM

There isn't really any info about range. It will just be the usual equation for a ball. However, it is very hard to get this system
to throw balls fast, as the spin rates become silly, and the accuracy is fairly poor, but will probably improve over time.
An active nozzle would be great, as this could shift the point of aim quite rapidly. Moving the entire gun wikll be hard,
especially changing elevation, due to gyroscopic effects.


Jacks Complete June 5th, 2005, 08:19 PM

Right, I've been digging around, and it seems that for the best results, we want something that has solid bearings, resists
shock, and is fairly small but still powerful, whilst still spinning rather fast.
The best thing I could find was the humble 3.5" angle grinder. Yours for 10, it spins at between 10,000 and 11,000 rpm. I
failed to find a 9" that went faster than 4,500, and I couldn't find any routers, due to the store closing around me. (Sunday
trading ends at 4 in the UK)
Anyway, this gives the following edge speeds at 10,500rpm:
115mm/4.5" -> 63 m/s

152mm/ 6" -> 83 m/s
300mm / 12" ->167m/s
Will do some more work on this tomorrow.
EDIT: Has anyone checked my equation is right?

115mm/4.5" -> 63 m/s

152mm/ 6" -> 83 m/s
300mm / 12" ->167m/s

115mm/4.5" -> 63 m/s

152mm/ 6" -> 83 m/s
300mm / 12" ->167m/s
malzraa June 5th, 2005, 10:37 PM

Is that radius or diameter?


Jacks Complete June 6th, 2005, 07:06 AM

That's a diameter.
Velocity of edge/projectile = Pi x Diameter x RPM/60
It's the same equation you would use to find the road speed of a car from the size of the wheels and the rate of turn, if
anyone knows what that is.

That's a diameter.
Velocity of edge/projectile = Pi x Diameter x RPM/60
It's the same equation you would use to find the road speed of a car from the size of the wheels and the rate of turn, if
anyone knows what that is.
nbk2000 June 7th, 2005, 12:28 PM

If you mounted the two discs on the same axis, but rotating in oppositon to each other, they'd nullify each others torque.
This is used on some helicopter drones.
nbk2000 June 7th, 2005, 12:28 PM

DirtyDan June 7th, 2005, 05:04 PM

I too thought of this, but it is interesting that the diagram found on the site is so simply drawn -- assuming that such
measures are taken for stability, the pictures would not even come close to the real weapon :rolleyes:
Also, with so much ammo, how would it be loaded? Would there be an emense canister underneath the rotor which would by
some mechanical means lift the projectiles to a launch point? Very strange..
DirtyDan June 7th, 2005, 05:04 PM

I too thought of this, but it is interesting that the diagram found on the site is so simply drawn -- assuming that such
measures are taken for stability, the pictures would not even come close to the real weapon :rolleyes:
Also, with so much ammo, how would it be loaded? Would there be an emense canister underneath the rotor which would by
some mechanical means lift the projectiles to a launch point? Very strange..

Yes, they would, but only until the rate of turn was different, or the weapons had to fire.
Also, there is still a small torque, which is hardly noticable on earth, but in space you would have some horrendous issues, as
the entire ship sung the wrong way. Also, the gyroscopic effects would mean that the entire craft would remain in the same
orientation as it orbited, meaning that you would have to keep wasting energy moving the craft's telescopes, antennas, etc. to
keep them looking down at the earth.
I think the answer is to have multiple discs, all spinning on different axes, and a way to fine tune them electronically. This
would allow the negative effects to be positive, as well as allowing energy storage without capacitors or batteries.
For earth use, two discs is twice the fun! The only risk is if the torque gets too high and bends or breaks the connecting axel.
It would add a little complexity into the design, but not much.
As far as building one goes, I've determined that the speed of a catapult slingshot ball is about 180 m/s (further research
required into mass, etc.) so that is going to be my target speed for now.
I need a 33cm diameter disc to do this at 10,500RPM. All I need now is to find someone with a large lathe who can turn a disc
at the right size with the right hole in the center. Which is easier said than done, since it needs to be balanced nicely, as well
as having a system to accelarate the balls smoothly, something like a set of rails, or some other way to impart momentum.

Yes, they would, but only until the rate of turn was different, or the weapons had to fire.
Also, there is still a small torque, which is hardly noticable on earth, but in space you would have some horrendous issues, as
the entire ship sung the wrong way. Also, the gyroscopic effects would mean that the entire craft would remain in the same
orientation as it orbited, meaning that you would have to keep wasting energy moving the craft's telescopes, antennas, etc. to
keep them looking down at the earth.
I think the answer is to have multiple discs, all spinning on different axes, and a way to fine tune them electronically. This
would allow the negative effects to be positive, as well as allowing energy storage without capacitors or batteries.
For earth use, two discs is twice the fun! The only risk is if the torque gets too high and bends or breaks the connecting axel.
It would add a little complexity into the design, but not much.
As far as building one goes, I've determined that the speed of a catapult slingshot ball is about 180 m/s (further research
required into mass, etc.) so that is going to be my target speed for now.
I need a 33cm diameter disc to do this at 10,500RPM. All I need now is to find someone with a large lathe who can turn a disc
at the right size with the right hole in the center. Which is easier said than done, since it needs to be balanced nicely, as well
as having a system to accelarate the balls smoothly, something like a set of rails, or some other way to impart momentum.
KemiRockarFett July 7th, 2005, 05:40 PM

According to this new system I did some calculations. If every ball fired from the DREAD-system has got an Velocity of 2500
m/s, there kinetic energy will be
2500^2 * 4 *10-3/2 = 12500 J, assumed that the ball weights 4 g. That energy will be taken from the rotating desk. Maybee I
read wrong but 120 000 fired balls per minut means that the input effect will be 12500*2000 = 25 MW !!, 2000 is obtained by
dividing 120 000 with 60.
So thats only realistic if some boat engine or nuclear plant is nearby as an power source.
A more realistic calculation will be if the balls are fired with an velocity of 800 m/s and rounds per minute are "only" 60 000 per
minute, meaning 1000 rounds per second.
Than the effect needed will be:
4*10^-3 * 800^2/2 *1000 = 1280 kW. That is 1706 hk input power !

It would be interesting to see the system on a chopper, hehe it will go down than they fire the DREAD :)
KemiRockarFett July 7th, 2005, 05:40 PM

According to this new system I did some calculations. If every ball fired from the DREAD-system has got an Velocity of 2500
m/s, there kinetic energy will be
2500^2 * 4 *10-3/2 = 12500 J, assumed that the ball weights 4 g. That energy will be taken from the rotating desk. Maybee I
read wrong but 120 000 fired balls per minut means that the input effect will be 12500*2000 = 25 MW !!, 2000 is obtained by
dividing 120 000 with 60.
So thats only realistic if some boat engine or nuclear plant is nearby as an power source.
A more realistic calculation will be if the balls are fired with an velocity of 800 m/s and rounds per minute are "only" 60 000 per
minute, meaning 1000 rounds per second.
Than the effect needed will be:
4*10^-3 * 800^2/2 *1000 = 1280 kW. That is 1706 hk input power !

It would be interesting to see the system on a chopper, hehe it will go down than they fire the DREAD :)
Jacks Complete July 23rd, 2005, 07:20 PM

On a chopper, the torque from a single disc would be hell for the last few moments of the pilots life!
I agree with the stupidity of some of the calculations. Assume a good modern car engine running with diesel, and you could
perhaps tap off 100 to 150 HP worth of energy into electric to power this thing. 150HP translates to 111kW, which is still plenty
short of the power requirements. 1706 HP is just way too much.
Still, the US military are likely to keep going with it. It will get there slowly. And takes an age to spin up and down.
My experiments with this type of thing have shown me that the mass that you throw has to be very small compared to the
mass you are spinning, otherwise the velocity of the next shot is too low, and the bullet drops low. The next one drops even
lower, etc. It gets worse, too, because the energy in the disc is not linearly proportional to the edge speed, so the more shots
you fire, the more rapidly the edge speed drops.
The larger the mass of the disc, however, the longer the system takes to switch from lethal to non-lethal, or to power up and
down in the first place.
So, the more accurate and lethal you make it, the longer it takes to be useable. I still reckon it will be a giant scattergun for
point defense... And then you might as well just use compressed air! (See the thread on full auto BB guns for details of that)
Jacks Complete July 23rd, 2005, 07:20 PM

On a chopper, the torque from a single disc would be hell for the last few moments of the pilots life!
I agree with the stupidity of some of the calculations. Assume a good modern car engine running with diesel, and you could
perhaps tap off 100 to 150 HP worth of energy into electric to power this thing. 150HP translates to 111kW, which is still plenty
short of the power requirements. 1706 HP is just way too much.
Still, the US military are likely to keep going with it. It will get there slowly. And takes an age to spin up and down.
My experiments with this type of thing have shown me that the mass that you throw has to be very small compared to the
mass you are spinning, otherwise the velocity of the next shot is too low, and the bullet drops low. The next one drops even
lower, etc. It gets worse, too, because the energy in the disc is not linearly proportional to the edge speed, so the more shots
you fire, the more rapidly the edge speed drops.
The larger the mass of the disc, however, the longer the system takes to switch from lethal to non-lethal, or to power up and
down in the first place.
So, the more accurate and lethal you make it, the longer it takes to be useable. I still reckon it will be a giant scattergun for
point defense... And then you might as well just use compressed air! (See the thread on full auto BB guns for details of that)
tomu July 23rd, 2005, 10:21 PM

Hi Jack's,
I remeber vaguely that an American built such a centrifugal gun with an e-motor during the first WW and wanted it to be
adoptetd by the Army. There is a picture of it and a short text about it in the book 'Hatcher's Notebook' which unfortunately I
just couldn't find in my mess.
tomu July 23rd, 2005, 10:21 PM

Hi Jack's,
I remeber vaguely that an American built such a centrifugal gun with an e-motor during the first WW and wanted it to be
adoptetd by the Army. There is a picture of it and a short text about it in the book 'Hatcher's Notebook' which unfortunately I
just couldn't find in my mess.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > Car penetration by firearms
Log in
View Full Version : Car penetration by firearms
Jacks Complete July 14th, 2005, 09:20 AM

I saw this on LiveJournal, posted by user "longarm", and thought of how useful this would be for reference. I've included the
comments and clarifications.
<hr>
Advanced Pistol 2: Rapid Deployment Pistol Operator
This is an after class write up completed by the Instructor.
We just finished the Advanced Pistol 2: Rapid Deployment Pistol Operator course at the Harvey Police Department range and
had another outstanding class. The class started in the morning with a short lecture on rapid deployment concepts and then
addressed Department of Homeland Security training issues and preparation for potential terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
Emphasis on the use of aggressive decisive action to engage terrorists and militant Muslim extremists during a rapid
deployment incident was driven home.
We then moved to the range and after a short "warm-up", students skills were put to the test with moving off the line of force
drills and multi-task drills during continuous movement around various obstacles. Multiple no shoot targets were incorporated
in the drills with students gradually moving to engage multiple threats while negotiating around multiple no-shoot targets and
maintaining continuous movement. All ammunition management, threat assessment and 360-degree area scanning was done
on the move!
After a short lunch, we returned to the range and began continuous lateral movement drills. Students would move laterally
from the left side of the range to the right side of the range engaging multiple threats while negotiating various obstacles and
A LOT of no-shoot targets!
This was followed up by rapid movement drills while engaging multiple threats that familiarized students with engaging threats
during several speeds of movement; covert speed (cautious movement speed), warrant service speed (directed movement
speed) and hostage rescue speed (rapid movement - running).
The same techniques were applied again when students participated in the in-line CQB course and staggered threat CQB
course using the same speed concepts.
After a short break, it was off to ballistic testing on vehicle windshield glass and vehicle sheet metal. Over 12 students brought
in various types of handgun, rifle and shotgun duty ammunition that was tested and evaluated on the vehicle donated for
testing.
Testing started with the lead instructor (John Krup
a) sitting in the vehicle and demonstrating ballistic capabilities and performance of handgun duty ammunition fired through
the windshield from inside the vehicle! An awesome test that exposed students to a practical concept that could be used
should an officer be engaged in a vehicle and is unable to immediately egress the vehicle.
Once all duty handgun ammunition was tested from inside the vehicle, the same test was conducted from outside the vehicle
shooting through windshield glass into the vehicle. Surprisingly, in both tests, almost all duty ammunition in all calibers tested,
9mm, .40 S&W, .45 acp and .357 magnum experienced jacket separation and slight angle deflection due to the angle of the
windshield. The 124 gr Gold Dot worked most consistently and did not display jacket separation. All duty handgun rounds
displayed inconsistent and poor penetration capabilities when fired into the engine block and doors of the vehicle. The engine
block stopped all handgun rounds and most handgun rounds entered the doors, but failed to exit into the interior of the
vehicle.
On to rifles. Testing started with .30 caliber carbine which displayed excellent penetration through windshield glass and
consistently penetrated sheet metal on the car doors into the interior of the vehicle. Engine block stopped all .30 cal. rounds.
Next, we used an
M-1 Garand in .30-06. Clean through the windshield, interior of the vehicle and out the back of the trunk. Consistently
penetrated the sheet metal on the car doors entering through one door, moving through the interior of the vehicle and exiting
the door on the opposite side of the vehicle. Impressive!!! The engine block was shot with 16 rounds of black tip armor
piercing ammunition and all rounds were stopped by the engine block!
Next was 7.62 x 39 ammunition fired from a Krebs Custom KTR-03S. The results were almost identical to the performance of
the
.30-06 rounds. 5.56 ball and Federal Tactical (fired from a Rock River LAR-15) penetrated windshield glass with no problem
and consistently penetrated vehicle sheet metal entering the interior of the vehicle, but in most cases, were stopped by sheet
metal on the opposite side of the vehicle. All 5.56 (ball, Federal Tactical and SS109) were all stopped by the engine block.
We finished up with 12 gauge #00 buckshot and slug. #00 through the windshield performed excellent, straight on, however,
any oblique angles involved resulted in pellet deflection. All #00 was stopped by vehicle sheet metal! Slug was another story.
Slug penetrated sheet metal consistently with an occasional stop in the doors where extra metal existed. All slugs were
stopped by the engine block.
After another exhausting day of training, we called it quits and cleaned the range up. Class closing lecture and discussion
focused on an increased likelihood of seeing attacks such as what occurred in England, Russia and Spain coming ever closer to
the shores of the U.S. It was made quite clear that we must remain ever vigilant if we are going to win the war on terrorism.
It was also interesting for students to learn and have confidence that their duty ammunition can be fired through windshield
glass from inside the vehicle and out. It was also assuring to know that the safest place you can be when using a vehicle for
cover is behind the engine block and front axle.
Thanks for listening. Stay safe, and I'll see you on the range!
Respectfully,
John Krupa III

President
Spartan Tactical Training Group, Inc.
<hr>
[info]ilcylic
2005-07-11 00:08 (link)
That's odd. I've used #00 Buck that went right through heavy 1970's automobile sheet metal.
-Ogre
<hr>
[info]no_brakes23
2005-07-11 05:21 (link)
So the engine block stops everything?
It also sounds like 5.56 is a good round to minimize collateral damage because it penetrates, but does not over penetrate as
much as the larger rounds.
Just out of curiousity, not as a matter of practicality, I wonder how .50BMG would do against the engine block. I would have
thought the slug or '06 might have penetrated.
Any data on radiator damage?
<HR>
[info]longarm
2005-07-11 09:33 (link)
50 BMG would have been nice to see.
If I remember correctly a handgun round punctured the radiator and caused all the fluids to drain.
<HR>
[info]no_brakes23
2005-07-11 09:43 (link)
So this would indicate that there is no immediate tactical benefit to firing to "disable" the vehicle? (Obviously no radiator will
eventually disable the vehicle.)
Also is there any reason .308/7.62x51 wasn't tested? Or was it assumed that it would perform close to the '06?
<HR>
[info]longarm
2005-07-11 09:56 (link)
No body brought a .308. It wasn't a scientific test. Just bring what ya brought and lets see what it does.
<HR>
[info]no_brakes23
2005-07-11 10:31 (link)
Ahhh, I have fallen prey to the assumption that .308 is ubiquitous amongst Mil/LEO types.
(Which I shouldn't, since I don't even own one.)
<HR>
[info]longarm
2005-07-11 21:43 (link)
Our snipers have .308 but not normal patrol
<HR>
[info]ilcylic
2005-07-11 11:50 (link)
So, when you say "stopped by the engine block" do you mean "did not enter the engine block" or "stopped somewhere inside
the engine block"?
-Ogre
<HR>
[info]longarm
2005-07-11 21:42 (link)
stopped somewhere inside
<HR>
[info]trb_1911
2005-07-12 14:55 (link)
The typical engine block as a 500 pound hunk of cast iron. Not the most resilient material, perhaps a bit brittle, but they tend
to stop bullets pretty well. Modern aluminum engine blocks would be more fragile, but it's still a hunk of metal the size of a
human torso, if not larger. I wouldn't be disappointed by the failure of a handgun or rifle round to do significant damage.
Now, car sheet metal, though, vexes me. I have an '87 Pontiac Sunbird in my backyard I got for $10 after its owner defaulted
it to the gas station a friend of mine was working at. It is now in my backyard, and serves as my testbed when I feel the need
to experiment with such things. The doors are remarkably hard to penetrate, not sue to the sheet metal, but due to things
inside, like the window regulators, various reinforcing stringers, and then the thickness of the upholstered door panel and
armrest. You have to avoid most of that internal mess and aim high or low enough that the armrest isn't struck, in order to
get a .45 FMJ into the interior. It's easier to just get the glass. Bullets fired through the trunk lid exit into the interior through
the backseat about 50% of the time, but with no appreciable accuracy or stability. Firing through the roof is 100% effective.
Three bullets and a hard side kick (wear boots and long pants!) will eliminate any window on the car, and the kick isn't always
necessary.

I saw this on LiveJournal, posted by user "longarm", and thought of how useful this would be for reference. I've included the
comments and clarifications.
<hr>
Advanced Pistol 2: Rapid Deployment Pistol Operator
This is an after class write up completed by the Instructor.
We just finished the Advanced Pistol 2: Rapid Deployment Pistol Operator course at the Harvey Police Department range and
had another outstanding class. The class started in the morning with a short lecture on rapid deployment concepts and then
addressed Department of Homeland Security training issues and preparation for potential terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
Emphasis on the use of aggressive decisive action to engage terrorists and militant Muslim extremists during a rapid
deployment incident was driven home.
We then moved to the range and after a short "warm-up", students skills were put to the test with moving off the line of force
drills and multi-task drills during continuous movement around various obstacles. Multiple no shoot targets were incorporated
in the drills with students gradually moving to engage multiple threats while negotiating around multiple no-shoot targets and
maintaining continuous movement. All ammunition management, threat assessment and 360-degree area scanning was done
on the move!
After a short lunch, we returned to the range and began continuous lateral movement drills. Students would move laterally
from the left side of the range to the right side of the range engaging multiple threats while negotiating various obstacles and
A LOT of no-shoot targets!
The same techniques were applied again when students participated in the in-line CQB course and staggered threat CQB
course using the same speed concepts.
After a short break, it was off to ballistic testing on vehicle windshield glass and vehicle sheet metal. Over 12 students brought
in various types of handgun, rifle and shotgun duty ammunition that was tested and evaluated on the vehicle donated for
testing.
Testing started with the lead instructor (John Krup
a) sitting in the vehicle and demonstrating ballistic capabilities and performance of handgun duty ammunition fired through
the windshield from inside the vehicle! An awesome test that exposed students to a practical concept that could be used
should an officer be engaged in a vehicle and is unable to immediately egress the vehicle.
Once all duty handgun ammunition was tested from inside the vehicle, the same test was conducted from outside the vehicle
shooting through windshield glass into the vehicle. Surprisingly, in both tests, almost all duty ammunition in all calibers tested,
9mm, .40 S&W, .45 acp and .357 magnum experienced jacket separation and slight angle deflection due to the angle of the
windshield. The 124 gr Gold Dot worked most consistently and did not display jacket separation. All duty handgun rounds
displayed inconsistent and poor penetration capabilities when fired into the engine block and doors of the vehicle. The engine
block stopped all handgun rounds and most handgun rounds entered the doors, but failed to exit into the interior of the
vehicle.
On to rifles. Testing started with .30 caliber carbine which displayed excellent penetration through windshield glass and
consistently penetrated sheet metal on the car doors into the interior of the vehicle. Engine block stopped all .30 cal. rounds.
Next, we used an
M-1 Garand in .30-06. Clean through the windshield, interior of the vehicle and out the back of the trunk. Consistently
penetrated the sheet metal on the car doors entering through one door, moving through the interior of the vehicle and exiting
the door on the opposite side of the vehicle. Impressive!!! The engine block was shot with 16 rounds of black tip armor
piercing ammunition and all rounds were stopped by the engine block!
Next was 7.62 x 39 ammunition fired from a Krebs Custom KTR-03S. The results were almost identical to the performance of
the
.30-06 rounds. 5.56 ball and Federal Tactical (fired from a Rock River LAR-15) penetrated windshield glass with no problem
and consistently penetrated vehicle sheet metal entering the interior of the vehicle, but in most cases, were stopped by sheet
metal on the opposite side of the vehicle. All 5.56 (ball, Federal Tactical and SS109) were all stopped by the engine block.
We finished up with 12 gauge #00 buckshot and slug. #00 through the windshield performed excellent, straight on, however,
any oblique angles involved resulted in pellet deflection. All #00 was stopped by vehicle sheet metal! Slug was another story.
Slug penetrated sheet metal consistently with an occasional stop in the doors where extra metal existed. All slugs were
stopped by the engine block.
After another exhausting day of training, we called it quits and cleaned the range up. Class closing lecture and discussion
focused on an increased likelihood of seeing attacks such as what occurred in England, Russia and Spain coming ever closer to
the shores of the U.S. It was made quite clear that we must remain ever vigilant if we are going to win the war on terrorism.
It was also interesting for students to learn and have confidence that their duty ammunition can be fired through windshield
glass from inside the vehicle and out. It was also assuring to know that the safest place you can be when using a vehicle for
cover is behind the engine block and front axle.
Thanks for listening. Stay safe, and I'll see you on the range!
Respectfully,
John Krupa III

President
Spartan Tactical Training Group, Inc.
<hr>
[info]ilcylic
2005-07-11 00:08 (link)
That's odd. I've used #00 Buck that went right through heavy 1970's automobile sheet metal.
-Ogre
<hr>
[info]no_brakes23
2005-07-11 05:21 (link)
So the engine block stops everything?
It also sounds like 5.56 is a good round to minimize collateral damage because it penetrates, but does not over penetrate as
much as the larger rounds.
Just out of curiousity, not as a matter of practicality, I wonder how .50BMG would do against the engine block. I would have
thought the slug or '06 might have penetrated.
Any data on radiator damage?
<HR>
[info]longarm
2005-07-11 09:33 (link)
50 BMG would have been nice to see.
If I remember correctly a handgun round punctured the radiator and caused all the fluids to drain.
<HR>
[info]no_brakes23
2005-07-11 09:43 (link)
So this would indicate that there is no immediate tactical benefit to firing to "disable" the vehicle? (Obviously no radiator will
eventually disable the vehicle.)
Also is there any reason .308/7.62x51 wasn't tested? Or was it assumed that it would perform close to the '06?
<HR>
[info]longarm
2005-07-11 09:56 (link)
No body brought a .308. It wasn't a scientific test. Just bring what ya brought and lets see what it does.
<HR>
[info]no_brakes23
2005-07-11 10:31 (link)
Ahhh, I have fallen prey to the assumption that .308 is ubiquitous amongst Mil/LEO types.
(Which I shouldn't, since I don't even own one.)
<HR>
[info]longarm
2005-07-11 21:43 (link)
Our snipers have .308 but not normal patrol
<HR>
[info]ilcylic
2005-07-11 11:50 (link)
So, when you say "stopped by the engine block" do you mean "did not enter the engine block" or "stopped somewhere inside
the engine block"?
-Ogre
<HR>
[info]longarm
2005-07-11 21:42 (link)
stopped somewhere inside
<HR>
[info]trb_1911
2005-07-12 14:55 (link)
The typical engine block as a 500 pound hunk of cast iron. Not the most resilient material, perhaps a bit brittle, but they tend
to stop bullets pretty well. Modern aluminum engine blocks would be more fragile, but it's still a hunk of metal the size of a
human torso, if not larger. I wouldn't be disappointed by the failure of a handgun or rifle round to do significant damage.
Now, car sheet metal, though, vexes me. I have an '87 Pontiac Sunbird in my backyard I got for $10 after its owner defaulted
it to the gas station a friend of mine was working at. It is now in my backyard, and serves as my testbed when I feel the need
to experiment with such things. The doors are remarkably hard to penetrate, not sue to the sheet metal, but due to things
inside, like the window regulators, various reinforcing stringers, and then the thickness of the upholstered door panel and
armrest. You have to avoid most of that internal mess and aim high or low enough that the armrest isn't struck, in order to
get a .45 FMJ into the interior. It's easier to just get the glass. Bullets fired through the trunk lid exit into the interior through
the backseat about 50% of the time, but with no appreciable accuracy or stability. Firing through the roof is 100% effective.
Three bullets and a hard side kick (wear boots and long pants!) will eliminate any window on the car, and the kick isn't always
necessary.

I did some tests with high-power rifles a few years back on 1/2" mild steel plate at 100yds.
6mm Rem 75gr dented it nicely
30/06 Black-tip AP , with the internal penetrator left a 1/4" hole and hardly slowed down , after shedding the jacket.
30/06 M2 ball went through just fine too.
The .303 British Mk7 ball ammo , with the internal aluminium nose-cone punched through, and left a 1/2'' dia. hole.
None of these make a great case for hiding in a vehicle while being hosed down with anything over pistol calibre, and even
then, it could be dodgy.
MGCeilidh April 12th, 2007, 12:18 AM

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/thebuickotruth.htm
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot7_3.htm
Hope this is useful.
Jacks Complete April 16th, 2007, 02:25 PM

Ah yes, the Box o' Truth. Interesting read, and the lucky git who wrote that page gets to go to Blackwater!
A few comments, though:
1. If you laminate the inside of your car windows, they will be far more bullet resistant to shots from the outside than shots
from the inside.
2. If you bulletproof the glass, don't forget to add shielding to the doors and seat backs/front bulkhead, as well as roof and (if
you feel it required) floor.
3. If you want to make your concrete cover cinderblocks 1000% tougher, fill them with gravel and cement - not quite concrete,
you want more stone than normal, and the cement is there to bind it together. If you want it even tougher still, use a foaming
polyurethane foam instead of cement, as that will bind the bits of broken cement together far better, and disipate shockwaves
too.
4. When taking cover behind a car, watch how the intelligent attacker blows your feet off, then shoots you some more once
you are down. Because if he is prone, mostly he will be looking at your feet!
nbk2000 April 16th, 2007, 02:51 PM

A relevant picture to the effectiveness of shooting someones feet out from under them.
InfernoMDM April 17th, 2007, 03:35 AM

Can you believe people who shoot while moving especially at "rapid movement - running' speed? I'd say I am sorry but I just
had to point that little bit out and no I am not questioning the validity of the post.
I have had the pleasure of shooting up some older vehicles. One of my interesting little things I found out was depending on
the doors construction and the angle of fire even 5.56 FMJ could be stopped. Newer model cars seem to be alot easier to
penetrate through the doors due to the lack of metal in general.
Jack just to note I don't know if adding laminate will do more to the glasses ability to stop a incoming round. Bullets do well
through the front windshiled but tend to change direction alot more. Pistol ammo at 30' can change point of impact as much
as 2 feet. Once several rounds have hit and shattered the glass this changes.
onemanriot May 6th, 2007, 03:03 PM

Very suprised the bodywork stopped buckshot. Some aaa or bb steel shot would have been interesting though.
InfernoMDM May 11th, 2007, 04:14 PM

Very suprised the bodywork stopped buckshot. Some aaa or bb steel shot would have been interesting though.
Probably little to no difference, I will see if the guys on the other forum used steel or not on there test. the 00 buck is pretty
much ball 23acp, and I haven't seen ball 32acp go through a car door yet, and we have been shooting some cars recently (no
windows).
Just remember though I like to shoot and move, just like the authors above, so we don't know what were talking
about.:rolleyes:
nbk2000 May 11th, 2007, 04:51 PM

Steel shot may be harder, but it has less penetration because it's less dense than lead, and for buckshot, mass has more
bearing on penetration than hardness.
To penetrate front or back windshields with non-slug shotgun ammo, one round has to be fired to break the glass, the next
round will penetrate through into the passenger compartment.
InfernoMDM May 13th, 2007, 05:21 PM
Steel shot may be harder, but it has less penetration because it's less dense than lead, and for buckshot, mass has more
bearing on penetration than hardness.
To penetrate front or back windshields with non-slug shotgun ammo, one round has to be fired to break the glass, the next
round will penetrate through into the passenger compartment.
Are we talking shotgun or pistol ammo? Pistol ammo will go through on the very first shot. I honestly haven't tried shotgun on
a car window yet, but I can see if we can pull that off.
nbk2000 May 13th, 2007, 05:27 PM

I would think it abundantly clear that I was talking about shotgun ammunition by using words like 'Steel shot', 'buckshot', and
perhaps most confusingly 'non-slug shotgun ammo'. :p
LibertyOrDeath April 7th, 2008, 05:46 AM

Here's a post by someone on another board that fits into this topic:
I was on the team that tested the armor of the Peace Keeper Armored Car in 1990-91. This was basically a conversion van with
roughly 3/8 inch armor steel plate for a body. At a range of 100 meters at an RAF test facility, we fired 7.62X51 ball, 7.62X51
AP, 7.62X39 ball, 7.62X39 AP, 5.56 M193 and SS109, 8MM Mauser and 303 British Mark VII.
Utilizing a Parker-Hale rifle with 1-10 twist, we shot the various 7.62X51 loads into the left side of the vehicle. Ball ammo would
penetrate most of the time. AP breezed through like butter, but neither round would go all the way through both sides.
Also on the left side of the vehicle, we fired the 7.62X39 out of a Russian AKM. It took two to three hits with the ball ammo
within a 4-6inch radius to defeat the armor plate. The steel core AP performed about the same, but when one got through, it
would also put a pretty good dent on the opposite armor plate.
Using an M16A1, we fired the M193 ammo into the right panel of the PK. It took two hits with the same 4-6 inch radius to
pierce the armor. A single hit would penetrate about 75% of the armor plate.
Using an M16A2 and SS109, on the right side panel, the bullets easily poked right through the armor and penetrated roughly
50% of the opposing panel.
Using another Parker-Hale rifle in 8mm Mauser with 1-12 twist, we fired into the left rear door. We were using Portuguese
heavy ball. The bullets put a dent in the armor, but just bounced right back at us.
With a Savage No4 Enfield and MKVII ammo, we concluded the tests on the right rear door. These rounds also just made a
dent and bounced back at us. We concluded it was probably the angle of the rear doors causing the rounds to bounce back at
us.
The tests continued with poking holes through the front of the PK and seeing if we could crack the engine block. We did quite
a bit of damage with the 7.62X51 AP and SS109.
I have a hard time believing any other tests I hear since I've been there and done that on Uncle Sam's tab.
Original URL (now dead): http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8056&whichpage=2
Note that the 5.56x45 NATO, in spite of its known inferiority at penetrating many common building materials and media such
as auto windshield glass, does better against some kinds of armor than many more powerful rounds.
If you own any 5.56 NATO (meaning it has the SS109 steel penetrator in the bullet), I suggest saving it for a rainy day rather
than shooting it. Practice with something else.
Solid brass spitzer bullets, either turned on a lathe or bought commercially, also have excellent penetration.
Rbick April 7th, 2008, 07:08 PM

Yeah the 5.56x45mm NATO was designed specifically for punching through body armor, which sucks ass since those asshole
insugents don't use body armor in Iraq. The bullets fly right through them, causing damage, but not enough to stop them in
their tracks. Especially when those bastards are on drugs. One of my buddies did land a well placed 5.56 round on the hood of
a vehicle from a littlebird helicopter, which penetrated the engine block and bounced around for a bit, completely stopping the
car. Alot of what a bullet can do depends on the type of ammunition.
We were trained to do the "controlled pair" to the chest and then 1 shot to the head, just to make sure. Firing the 7.62x51mm
never posed an issue when it came to unarmored personnel. It was big enough to stop people, even if it was FMJ. If it were up
to me and the country had the money for it, I would upgrade all of the M-4s to chamber 7.62x51mm.
gaussincarnate April 18th, 2008, 12:16 AM

Although my experience with firearms is rather limited, I have to agree with your sentiments on 7.62 rounds. In all reality, the
5.56 round has very little to offer in modern combat. Yes, it has a higher velocity and yes, you can carry more of it, but it is
often many times less efficient. In urban combat, 5.56 rounds make even less sense, since most firefights are rather short-
lived (minimal ammunition requirement) and the velocity of the round has very little bearing on its capability in close quarters.
On a related note, have any of you seen that (relatively) new episode of Futureweapons with the M4 chambered to fire .50cal
rounds? It is being tested as a compliment to the M4, almost like the M203 minus the boom and the fact that it can be fired
alongside the M4. Its main selling point is its ability to drop anything alive (its effectiveness has not yet been proven for
zombies, though I would imagine that it would be on par with the shotgun or the ever popular chain saw) or anything with
wheels with a single shot.
Back on topic. If it were me and there was a vehicle driving at me, I would want the most obnoxiously large and otherwise
excessive weapon I could find. An MG-42 would be nice, if anyone still used them. In lieu of an MG-42, the bigger and faster,
the better.
Rbick April 18th, 2008, 10:32 PM
Just to clarify, it should be mentioned that the M4s chambered for .50 is not a .50 BMG, its a .50 Beowulf. Firing a .50 BMG
from an M4 platform would be suicidal. Here is a picture (http://www.gunblast.com/images/50Beowulf/Mvc-005f.jpg)with a .50
Beowulf compared to a 5.56x45mm round. I'm assuming gaussincarnate knew that, I was just clarifying. You make an
excellent point in that the 5.56 is not very useful in CQ combat. You need something that knocks the target down, not a round
that flys right through with minimal damage. The .50 Beowulf is a perfect round for knocking the bad guy on his ass, as is the
7.62x51mm or Soviet 7.62x39mm.
MG-42s were awesome... in the 40's. Today I would prefer a Mk-48 (http://images.military.com/pics/SoldierTech_Mk48-1.jpg),
which is what I carried on my tours in Iraq. Reliable, relatively light at 18.26 pounds, easily fired from the standing position,
and fired the 7.62x51mm(.308) round. My personal favorite weapon of all time.
joffe April 19th, 2008, 05:49 AM

I've never tried the MG42 but I have quite a bit of experience with its successor, the MG3. (which is virtually the same thing,
except for being chambered for the 7.62X51mm instead of the WW2 7.92X57mm). Probably having fired a couple of hundred
thousand rounds with it. With a weight of 11.6 kg, it's not my first choice of personal weapon. The rate of fire is awsome (1500
rpm), which makes it a little bit hard to control for some if you fire it from a standing position (easily remedied by leaning
forward). The mechanism is also relatively complex and can't take as much abuse and neglicence as its Russian counterparts.
But mounted on a tripod or fired from a prone position, I wouldn't trade it for any other machinegun. The sound, the air-
pressure, the power it projects is just awsome.
Yafmot April 20th, 2008, 10:51 PM

Perhaps it's time to straighten out a few things. First of all, the original AR-15/M16s were equipped with a 1/14 rifling twist,
since it was well known that small, high velocity, understabilized varmint bullets could inflict incredible tissue damage, since it
exhausted all of its KE in the target in a very abrupt manner. It was soon learned that 1/14 was a little too loose, with bullets
deflecting off of twigs, heavy grass and other small vegetation. So it was tightened up to 1/12, and went to trials in Southeast
Asia.
I got to see some films of the trials, and they took some stomach to watch. In one instance, a guy in black pajamas with an
SKS is running along, when suddenly most of his head explodes in a cloud of pink vapor. In another a similar scene, only he
takes the hit about halfwat between the right nipple and shoulder, and his arm goes flying. But the one that got to me was the
guy who took the hit in the lower left abdomen. The hydrostatic shock was so severe that his intestines were extruded through
his right rib cage. All of this with 55gr. square heel bullets.
As usual, leave it to the Army to fuck up a good thing. They go to a 62 grain boattail, in the interest of more penetration, but
now the bullet's too long to stabilize with a 1/12 twist. So they go clear down to 1/7, and now the slug remained stable in flight
. Unfortunately, it also remained stable through doors, clothing, flesh, bone, more flesh, more clothing, and whatever else was
farther downrange. So the Army now issues noisy, long range icepicks. This is the exact opposite of the whole original concept!
Instead of a weapon that will gouge big, ugly chunks out of an opponent, guaranteeing he's flattened, they've got one that
punches little, dinky holes in the bad guy, guaranteeing that he's good 'n pissed off!
As for other cartridges in the AR-15/M-16/M-4, they're all limited by the size of the magazine well. The 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC,
.450 Bushmaster and .50 Beowulf all fit within these confines, although the bigger ones must be single stacked, limiting
capacity.
There are a couple of exceptions here. MGI (formerly MWG, think "90 Rounder") offers a modular lower receiver with an
interchangeable mag well, to switch between 5.56 and 7.62x39. Needless to say, you'll need a 7.62x39 upper to go along with
it (or any other nonstandard caliber, for that matter). The materials and workmanship are first class, and it's reflected in the
price (about $450 for just the bare lower).
Another one is a .50 BMG upper that fits on a standard -15 lower. It's made up in Oregon, but the name of the company
escapes me. As you might expect, it's a single shot affair. But rumor has it that it's rough on lowers. I'll have to look into it
further.
Generally, the larger caliber rounds (except the .50 BMG) are good for penetrating brush, but not so much for armor. The
smaller, higher velocity projectiles can be deflected more easily, but will work better on light armor. This, of course, is
contingent on bullet design and construction; a tungsten core will work way better than lead.
I've probably omitted a few things. I'm sure someone will let me know.
EOD April 21st, 2008, 03:12 AM

A few things. 5.56mm NATO is not just SS109. It includes 193, 196, etc. There are many makers of .50cal uppers for the Ar 15
lower receiver. There is the .50 Beowulf, the .50 AE and the .50BMG. Within the .50BMG there are many manufacturers. I own
an Ultramag 50 that is a bolt action magazine fed upper. Bohica Arms, the Ferret50, are examples of other companies that
make them. Also don't forget about the .458Socom, 3oo Fireball and all the WSSM uppers that are made. There are some
excellent bullets that will easily penetrate armor. The only problem is that they will/can't be sold to civilians. RBCD ammo is a
perfect example.

I've probably omitted a few things. I'm sure someone will let me know.
Yup, but that was a pretty good summary.
The trend towards the ultra-light, low-impulse vHV rounds isn't going to stop any time soon. The 5.56 was really a compromise
in itself, since the British researched had already come out with the 4.7 (iirc) round that was put into the first versions of what
eventually became the L98 and SA-80 rifles. (The first ones were in the 60's, and have wooden stocks rather than plastic.)
The USA decided on 5.56 and through whatever means got it adopted. Now, 40 odd years later, everyone's till looking at the
smaller rounds.
As a side note, the quote about the penetration of the armoured car above is nothing new. Basically, if you hit the material
faster than a certain critical speed, it will (not have time to bend and so) shatter. Below that it will (have time to) bend. The
actual size of the bullet has nothing to do with it, all else being equal. It's just a hell of a lot harder to fire a bigger bullet as
fast as a little bullet.
Yafmot April 26th, 2008, 04:05 AM

Well, the .223 Rem. (I'm using the civilian terminology to distinguish it from other, similar cartridges) was developed because
the the round that was originally worked with for the AR-15 was the .222 Rem, and wouldn't quite satisfy one requirement the
Army had. They insisted that the round absolutely HAD to reliably penetrate a steel helmet at 300 yards. Never mind that you
don't see your average ground pounder taking head shots at that range, especially through open sights.
So the ArmaLite crew got together with Remington and figured that they could increase the powder capacity by up to 12%
without unduly increasing the port pressure. (Dont forget that they were originally working with IMR powder.) That became the
.223 Remington. NATO acceptance didn't occur until many years later, then picking up the 5.56x45 designation. (By the way,
all the well known "22" varmint rounds have an actual bullet diameter of .224.)
Oh, and here's the skinny on the ammo that got all those soldiers killed. As stated above, the rifle was originally developed
for IMR (stick) powder. As long as that was used, port pressure (the pressure inside the bore directly behind the bullet when it
passed the gas port) was not a problem. But after WWII, the military had huge surpluses of just about everything, including
propellants. Everyone was geared up for another couple of years of war, for the invasion of the Japanese home islands. Then
BOOM! Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the war ends abruptly, and we're sitting on these enormous stockpiles off STUFF.
One of the things they had lots of was tons and tons of howitzer powder, and some bright boy in Army Ordnance decided it
could be reclaimed, and remanufactured into small arms propellant. This turned out to be a bad idea on a couple of fronts.
The small arms propellant lines were geared up for ball powder. The Army decided that this was desireable, since spherical
powder would provide higher pressures & hence higher velocities.
It also meant that the higher working pressure would translate into higher port pressure and, by extension, more violent
operation of the mechanism. It occasionally became so severe that the little elastomer bumper on the recoil buffer would be
beaten to fragments, allowing metal to slam onto metal. This could eventually result in a peening action between the bolt &
carrier, actually swelling the carrier diameter slightly, and also slightly misaligning the gas key, so it would tend to bind in the
protruding gas tube at the front of the upper receiver.
But this isn't the half of it. That howitzer stuff these huge batches of ball powder were reclaimed from was chock full of Carbon.
Not only that, the 10-12 Ksi extra working pressure meant that the bullet swelled against the bore surface so hard that the
edges of the gas port would shave minute particles of the Cupro-Nickel gilding metal off of the jacket. This formed an alloy
with the excess Carbon which was just harder than Chinese arithmetic. This amalgam would blow through the gas tube in a
high enthalpy jet that would very efficiently deposite it all over the gas key, bolt carrier ports, gas rings, bolt stem, extractor,
ejector, firing pin etc. The alloy was much harder than Carbon alone, and would just lock everything up solid. And even if that
didn't do it, it wouldn't take much other contamination to finish the job.
Of course, the Army immediately pointed it's finger at Stoner, but he wasn't having any of that shit. He actually appeared
before several congressional commitees, and ran it down in such a manner that there was no way for the Army to squirm out
of it. He told them he never claimed the weapon would never need cleaning, only that it would be resistant to fouling, but that
that claim was based on the use of the much cleaner, lower pressure IMR powder. When the Army decided to deviate from the
original specs, that was when the trouble started.
By that time, though, there were millions of rounds of the dirty stuff in-country, and it would be a logistical nightmare to
attempt to completely replace it anytime soon. So cleaning kits were issued (which should have happened in the first place),
and armorers were provided with chrome-bore replacement barrels, as were later deliveries of new rifles. (And then there's that
goddamned silly forward assist button, which the original designers hated, not to mention that 3 round burst. But that's for
another time.)
Anyway, that's how Stoner ran it down to me.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > Burning bullets - melting your way into a tank
Log in
View Full Version : Burning bullets - melting your way into a tank
Jacks Complete October 7th, 2005, 09:15 PM

New Scientist
6th September 2005
Burning bullets
A bunker-busting shell that gets so hot on impact that it burns its way through concrete and steel is being developed by the US Navy's Warfare Center in Virginia.
The shell contains a mixture of aluminium polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and perchlorate oxydiser, moulded together into an aerodynamic shape. To prevent the mixture from
disintegrating as it travels through air at high velocity the shell is w rapped in a soft Teflon tape, w hich is wound tight under high tension, heated and topped with epoxy glue to
prevent unravelling.
Its high-velocity impact acts as a catalyst, forcing the two chemicals together in a red hot reaction. The projectile gets so hot so fast that it should instantly burn its way through
armour plating or other defences.
And the burning shell w ould avoid the environmental pitfalls of radioactive depleted uranium - currently the most common material used in armour-piercing shells.
Read the burning bullets patent at http://tinyurl.com/cgopd
---
Sounds like fun, & certainly one up from Thermite!
malzraa October 7th, 2005, 10:05 PM

I like that idea. Seems like it w ould be easily defeated by an ablative or reactive armor. The Reactive armor would be an explosive that detonates upon the impact of one of
these burners, throwing the burning material away from the target to burn harmlessly on the ground. Very inventive, though.
nbk2000 October 8th, 2005, 04:59 PM

Reactive fragments are a good thing. Perhaps the implementation, as described in the patent, is flawed on purpose? After all, the government knows that foreign nations read
patents too.
meselfs October 9th, 2005, 10:40 PM

I like that idea. Seems like it w ould be easily defeated by an ablative or reactive armor. The Reactive armor would be an explosive that detonates upon the impact of one of
these burners, throwing the burning material away from the target to burn harmlessly on the ground. Very inventive, though.
It'd probably w ork only for burning bullets.
It doesn't seem plausible to me... in order to repell a regular (HE or KE) bullet off, your explosives w ould create a reactive force that would at the very least throw the bullet
back. This results in a big momentum transfer, bigger then if the bullet jsut hit...
If I encountered a tank w ith such silly armor I'd fire HE/KE bullets at it and exploit this sensitivity.

Yeah, that is true. The point of these bullets w as to melt through armor though, not to destroy by the transfer of momentum, and that could be defeated through reactive
armor. only problem w ith reactive armor is that is gone after you use it.

It'd probably w ork only for burning bullets.
It doesn't seem plausible to me... in order to repell a regular (HE or KE) bullet off, your explosives w ould create a reactive force that would at the very least throw the bullet
back. This results in a big momentum transfer, bigger then if the bullet jsut hit...
If I encountered a tank w ith such silly armor I'd fire HE/KE bullets at it and exploit this sensitivity.
Which is why reactive armour is only found on tanks. You can't exploit it, because if you knock on the door, they send a 155mm round to see w ho's there. They know where
you are - it's a modern tank w ith reactive armour, a thermal imager and a shot direction finder of some type.
Your first shot sets off a non-directed block of C-4 (or whatever) and this goes bang. Without compression or direction, the vast majority of the force goes outwards, rather than
doing much to the foot or so of tank armour behind it. It does a great job of fucking up anything incoming, though, like an RPG or a HESH round.
Anyway, the idea of burning your way through at supersonic speeds is almost insane. The composition in the patent must burn faster than most low explosives!
FU TI October 10th, 2005, 06:29 PM

I agree Jack it look very awkward to me...seems like someone looked upon a space shuttle crash movie and got up an idea. That mixture w ill ignite and make a lot of heat, but
did anyone tried to figure out how this can drill a hole? I believe that heat is slow er transfered to an object this projectile hits that the projectile itself smash into the object...so I
couldn't call that a melting. It seems this two forces work combined (if this actually work and isn't a hoax generated in some obscure secret agency)- like in "beating the
plowshares into swords" the more you beat it the warmer it gets;) I got a similar idea few years ago but I w as thinking about cheap armor-piercing ammo, but since this didn't
needed a termite of any kind to w ork I didn't planed it that w ay(w hy would I use a cannon to kill a fly?).
Chris The Great October 10th, 2005, 09:02 PM

What happens when molten metal/stuff hits something hard at high speed? It splatters.
More well spent government money on something that couldn't possibly work.

I suppose this all could be proven effective/ineffective mathematically (aside from the arguments relating to the actual mechanics of the bullet). In order for the bullet to burn
through the armor, it must be travelling fast enough so that the entire armor surface doesn't absorb the heat (high temperature gradient around the impact area), but slow
enough for the metal to boil away and not merely splinter and deflect the bullet. It also must burn quickly and hot enough to boil the target armor very rapidly, but not so
quickly as to burn out before reaching the center of the target. All this seems to be WAY to much "if"s just to make a novel armor-piercing bullet. Way to many potential points
of failure.
meselfs October 12th, 2005, 08:38 PM

I'd say a burning bullet isn't a bad idea at all (unlike that reactive armor...).
The bullet would have to be rather long, and it may w ork best as a rocket or with mass in the back to keep it moving as it burns.
The fuel would also need to be heavy & insensitive, so that the molten/vaporized material could go around it withough messing it up.
If a burning bullet could w ork, then w hat about some sort of burning "clam" ? You could stick it onto a tank, ignite it, and run; assuming you could approach the tank w ithout
being perforated. It w ould look like a daddy longlegs spider, w ith the centerpiece doing the burning.

That's a good idea. It would either need to be placed directly on top of the tank, or have some sort of propellant to push it into the tank.
Chris The Great October 14th, 2005, 05:00 AM

Heat seeking thermite carrying kamikazi robots? :cool:
In terms of reliability and effectiveness, shaped charges seem to work quite w ell. Unless they have reactive armour, that is actually VERY effective, it can cut penetration down
to 1/4 normal. The problem is it is single usage so if they shoot you again in the same spot you aren't going to be a happy tank.
Flake2m October 14th, 2005, 02:26 PM

Well an M1 abrams fires projectiles that are about 2-3ft long, so theres the long projectile that you need.
Given the sound of this technology, There is likely to be a tungsten penetrator associated with it. Tungsten can be pyrophoric in certain conditions.
Don't the DU round kill tanks because the amount of heat and energy the round has get transferred over to the armour and cockpit? I did see pictures of tank turrets being
blown off the tank and landing many metres away from the tank wreckage.
My train of thought is;

This composition is used to coat a standard tungsten penetrator. So when this round hits the armour, it enhances the effects of the actual penetrator itself, this w ould make the
round more effective at penetrating armour. Also the tungsten is nessecary to give the round some w eight and momentum.
The other effect this would have is killing crew and disabling vital systems, because 300*Cparticles and human flesh,fuel tanks and ammuntion don't mix too w ell.
teshilo October 17th, 2005, 12:32 PM

Other nice stuff.Bullet created from these composition after shot none any traces for forensic.All self destruct.And if created bullet composition incendiary explosive type as PTFE
perchlorate outer, inner rubber azide mix around hard steel needle?

Other nice stuff.Bullet created from these composition after shot none any traces for forensic.All self destruct.And if created bullet composition incendiary explosive type as PTFE
perchlorate outer, inner rubber azide mix around hard steel needle?
Like the "ice bullet" that melts inside the victim... (Edit: Yes, I know! :roll: )
I think that using a burning bullet on a person would make the target more likely to survive than less, since the heat would help stop the bleeding.
There would be far more to go on forensically than normal, just no rifle marks on the slug. The barrel would have traces of the burning composition on it unless saboted, and
then it would be rifling free anyway.
Energetically, I doubt anything can burn fast enough to put the heat into the metal fast enough to make much difference to the rate of penetration without actually deflagrating.
However, it seems like it might work after millions of dollars (and rounds) of testing. I'd do that job!
Heat seeking thermite carrying kamikazi robots?Why not? Ever played Red Alert 2? Imagine a steel spider that tracked heat, was quite tough to kill, man sized or large dog
sized, and armed w ith an oxygen lance or a plasma cutter, and some thermite to pump in once the hole was cut. Good vs. tanks, I think.
Now the DARPA Grand Challenge is complete and won (by five different teams!) I can see these things being five years away, tops. Of course, the tanks won't have a crew
either...
ShadowMyGeekSpace May 22nd, 2006, 06:53 AM

What about HEAT rounds?
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/HEAT

A HEAT round doesn't use heat, it uses the explosive shockwave to form a molten jet that travels very rapidly, and that bores through.
This idea is a bit different, in that it doesn't try to punch through with a small jet, it tries to burn through with the entire round, without the explosive acceleration.
I can see a two inch wood slab stopping one of these rounds, with a layer of something underneath. The water/steam outgassing will disrupt the forward travel, and the carbon
layer would resist the heat rather well.
Chris The Great May 25th, 2006, 05:16 AM

The jet isn't molten... but basically it's a shaped charge with a rocket strapped to it. Completely different than this idea, as JC says.
Gollum June 4th, 2006, 01:32 PM

There's some more ways to kill tanks. You can kill a T80 as well as M1's by using a smoke grenade.. Both the tanks use turbine engines. Turbines die w hen they ingest stuff
they're not supposed to. So throw a smoke grenade on the air intake and let the engine choke to death. Sometimes the turbine will catch fire and the crew will have to
evacuate. Other times the turbine will just die and the tank w ill be stuck motionless for a while until the gunk clears out of the compressor stages.
FYI, HEAT rounds are terrible antitank rounds because they do not penetrate armor very well. They are better for very old tanks (Like 50's and 60's equipment) or APC's. A heat
round from an M1 probably w ouldn't kill a T72 except if it hit the turret ring or the back. Sabot are much better for anti tank stuff.
And yes the HEAT round is basically a shaped charge, look at one if you can, it's clearly a conical shape w ith a single spike in the middle. When it is fired and hits a target, the
whole unit heats to a molten form, reverses shape and the center of the unit penetrates the armor then breaks up into thousands of pieces (spalls) which is what kills the crew
inside (at least initially, before any ammo or fuel explodes). Most new armor has a spall liner to stop this from happening.

The spall liner was originally designed for protection from HESH rounds, w hich were the forerunner of HEAT. They used a block of plastic explosive, and were designed to hit the
arnour, then squash against it. It was then detonated from the rear, w hich coupled the shockwave into the armour, causing bits to fly off the inside, killing the crew without
actually defeating the armour.
HEAT is very, very effective, and is used in most man-portable systems, where the energy required to launch a KE kill w arhead would be too high for a man. The copper dart
from an RPG9 has killed more tanks, even relatively modern tanks, than you have probably ever seen. However, against a non-linear density armour such as Chobham (a
secret steel sandwich of carbide and tungsten bits with an inert filler) and even the WWII emergency ship protection of steel bread w ith gravel and tar (tarmac) filling, it is very
much less effective. A quite modern and unfielded as yet development is a highly charged capacitor and two steel plates with an air gap, which when bridged by the copper is
instantly blown apart by the current surge, much like a fuse.
The latest way to stop anti-tank rounds is with an electronic system that fires an anti-anti-tank missile to intercept. Lots of info at http://ww w.defensetech.org/archives/
002230.html
I know that the Axis powers tried to use an ozone generatoing bomb to stall tank engines in WWII, but that failed. I also find it unilkely that a smoke bomb would kill an M1
tank's engine, when standard ops. call for huge continuous smokescreens over huge areas for a long time, generated and spread by the tanks themselves.
Chris The Great June 7th, 2006, 08:05 PM

The most recent w arheads use an EFP since it is not affected by countermeasures for the HEAT round. Since HEATs are the most common thing in the w orld thanks to the RPG-
7, tanks are soft targets for an EFP w arhead.
OTOH, EFP warheads are a little more complex, since they need a much larger standoff.

I'm just pondering, it's possible that you could kill a turbine engined tank by reacting with the jet fuel more aggressively than air. I don't have any real experiance of turbine
engines, but I do know that they can suck in huge volumes of air, they are very high powered yet quite quiet, and they take a w hile to spin up. If an M1 is sat there, it takes a
few moments before it can start moving, as the turbine suffers from, effectively, "turbo lag". How ever, there's no way that you could flood the engine w ith sand or grit, due to
the filters, and no way you could really use a regular liquid. It would have to be a gas, and quite a high volume of it.
Gollum June 8th, 2006, 10:49 PM

>take a while to spin up.<
In my experience I have not found that to be the case on either the american or russian tanks. The turbines are supposed to run at high rpm's so that torque is instantly
available w hen needed. My understanding is that it's adjusted dow nward when needed for fuel economy. In modern jetliners and military aviation, it's standard procedure to do
your final approach with the engines set to high thrust settings so that if something goes wrong like a windshear, you don't have to wait ages for the engines to spool up. It's
not good for fuel economy and it requires a higher angle of approach, but it makes more sense maneuverability/safety wise.
As I mentioned a few posts above, the best way to do it is w ith a few smoke grenades, or if you can find any chemical that reacts violently on contact w ith jp1 then that would
be another ok substitute.
Other easy tank killing methods are just the old basics stuff. Blowing up the tracks of a tank really puts it in a jam for about 30 minutes. Killing the TC or fucking up the
periscope on the m1a2 would make things more difficult for the crew , so would blow ing up external fuel tanks. The russians have all kinds of flammable shit on the back of
t72's.
probably the best realistic method of killing a tank is the IED method and the tow elheads over there already know this and use it to good effect. The underside is generally the
weakest part of all military vehicles.
FU TI June 9th, 2006, 11:22 AM

I'm just pondering, it's possible that you could kill a turbine engined tank by reacting with the jet fuel more aggressively than air.
I have no idea about those engines but taking your idea into consideration cheapest idea I can thought of is NOx. Now we all know how to make it...but quick and enough when
needed. I had somew here description how to make liquid N2O3 I think. To much trouble if you ask me but w ho knows...
Sausagemit June 21st, 2006, 06:53 AM

I know that the Axis powers tried to use an ozone generatoing bomb to stall tank engines in WWII, but that failed. I also find it unilkely that a smoke bomb would kill an M1
tank's engine, when standard ops. call for huge continuous smokescreens over huge areas for a long time, generated and spread by the tanks themselves.
But that's acctually caused by dumping diesel fuel into the hot exhaust, completely different than a red phosphorus smoke gernade. I also find it somew hat hard to believe that
a RP smoke gernade w ould stall a m1's engine too. But using the right kind of smoke, mabye something thats w ater or oil based might do the trick.
And don't DU rounds pretty much do the same thing. Correct me if I'm wrong but DU when put under extreme stress (such as being fired at high velocities into something solid)
heat up a lot, enough to melt it's w ay through armor.
The only drawback is the radiation, but it's so little that nobody cares except those environmentalists who don't realize that in order for it to be harmfull it has to be ground up
and injested, so pretty much the only people who have to worry about it are either too stupid because they were chewing on a chunk of DU and deserver to die or the people
with two heads because they were on the recieving end of a DU round.
++ ++++ ++
Improve your grammar and spelling ASAP. NBK
Chris The Great June 22nd, 2006, 10:45 PM

The penetrator is caused by the combination of extreme velocity, density and strength of the DU round, concentrated onto a very small area. It has nothing to do w ith how hot
the round may get.
Once inside the tank however, the DU ignites into flame. This is why DU rounds cause enviromental effects, because they are blown into fine uranium oxide dust once they
penetrate a tank, and this uranium oxide is easily absorbed into the enviroment.

If you can find some way of getting that much smoke there fast enough, and then making it persistant for long enough to stall the engine/turbine, go for it. I seriously doubt
that it will work. Burning deisel doesn't do much, and red and white phosphorus had been used in war for a w hile now. The fine Iraq dust storms killed a lot of the UK tanks
because they decided to save 7million by not fitting them, but that problem has gone now they fitted them. (Cost a lot more than the original 7mill. though!) You can put a
cigarette out in JP1 now, you know ? It's going to take something really special.
As for the M1 series taking a while to get moving, my point was that the troops have said that it is an issue, because the turbines aren't alw ays spooled up, and they can't be
because you need to have enough fuel to do what you are doing and get home again, and running at 100% all the time means you run out hours before.
Sausagemit June 24th, 2006, 02:07 PM

Once inside the tank however, the DU ignites into flame. This is why DU rounds cause enviromental effects, because they are blown into fine uranium oxide dust once they
penetrate a tank, and this uranium oxide is easily absorbed into the enviroment.
Oh, so it's a pyrophoric material, I did not realize that. I guess I should have done a little bit of research before posting.
But you still have to ingest/inhale/be shrapneld (not a real word but it should be) by DU in order for it to be harmful as it emits very little gamma radiation and the alpha and
beta particles (its main source of radiation) are blocked by skin and clothes respectively. So as long as your not licking an exploded Iraqi tank, I think you w ill be fine. And the
old T-64's used a lot of asbestos so I think the DU would be the least of your worries if you see a T-64 shot up by it.
And as for modern JP-1, it's pretty much kerosene with a detergent additive (it used to be almost straight kerosene) to give it a very high flash point. It's different than most
modern jet aircraft fuels in the fact it doesn't ignite as easy as JP-5 (the kind used on aircraft carriers to cut dow n on the fire hazard), and even JP-7 (fuel used in supersonic
aircraft).
The reason JP-1 isn't used for aircraft anymore is because of its slow burn rate compared to other superior kerosene based mixtures. Pretty much the only use for JP-1 in
modern aircraft anymore is for scramjets, which are still in the working prototype phase of development. But as for a tank fuel it works great for the above stated reasons.
sparkchaser November 30th, 2006, 05:31 PM

Tanks these days use JP-8, which is fairly similar to diesel. All U.S. military vehicles run on this stuff to help in logistics.
DU is pyrophoric, which causes a massive overflash inside the troop compartment after the round has penetrated and left a cloud of DU dust inside.
The w ay it defeats armor is tw o-fold. One; as it penetrates, it self sharpens by non linear fracture. Two; it has incredible density which gives it the energy to keep travelling
through steel at the massive velocities which it is fired at (gotta love sabots!).
Heat rounds are shaped charges which work very well for thinner armor, but don't have the penetration to defeat armor on most facets of the tank. Tanks are faceted to deflect
the majority of frontal or side attacks by most weapons.
I think the teflon/aluminum/perchlorate rounds *could* work, if only they had the density to cary any sort of velocity at range, or penetrate for that matter.
The U.S. is considering the replacement of it's 30mm anti tank DU rounds with tungsten because the tungsten carries it's velocity better, and is able to penetrate at a greater
distance. Added to the carcinogenic effects of tungsten fragments, but no radioactivity (DU does infect the graound water with radiation quite badly), and it's a winner. DU's only
advantage comes in the shorter ranges (if you consider 4,000m to be short), and the advantage is slight.
The dense smoke of a few smoke grenades may work to stop the engine, if enough was ingested. The A-10 thunderbolt II initially had flameout problems w hen firing it's main
gun at certain angles of attack, due to the engines ingesting the large amounts of smoke that 30mm rounds make w hen fired at 6,000 rounds per minute.
The aircraft's fuselage had to be completely redesigned to deflect the smoke into the slipstream below the plane.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > Tungsten: The Cancer Shrapnel
Log in
View Full Version : Tungsten: The Cancer Shrapnel
nbk2000 May 25th, 2006, 07:27 PM

During my research, I've read about how many US w eapons are being loaded with tungsten as shrapnel, instead of DU (Depleted Uranium), because of concerns over the
enviromental impact of DU's radioactivity.
But, research of the effects of weapons-grade W (Tungsten) shrapnel suggests that the cure might be as bad as the disease.
Testing on rats showed that, after implantation with W fragments in a ratio similar to that of wounded soldiers from GW1, 100% of the rats developed extremely aggressive
tumors of a rare cancer, w hich formed around the pellets within 4-5 months after implantation.
Every rat so exposed had to be put down because the cancer metastasized to their lungs and brains within a few weeks.
The pellets are made by Aerojet Ordnance, 1mm x 2mm and weighing 27.5 mg (small!) and consisted of 91.1% tungsten, 6% nickel, and 2.9% cobalt.
Other research is looking into a connection to leukemia.
Tungsten pow der is being added to IM explosives in new ordance to increase both penetration (high weight density), and to form 'micro-shrapnel' - high-velocity, high
temperature inert metal particles - but not carrying enough mass to carry more than 40x charge diameter - as part of the DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) project.
Because the dense W fragments so effectively couple the an explosives destructive energy into the target, compared to simple airblast, less explosive is needed for increased
effect. :)
Now, w hat does this mean for us?
Powdered W, at $52 per pound, is available from a well-know n ammunition reloading supplier with no questions asked. A specialty supplier has it at $8/pound, if you can get
them to sell it to you.
Anyways...the addition of powdered W to bare explosive charges could greatly increase lethality of small charges, such as letter-bombs.
A bare charge that would normally just blow off hands now kills anyone w ith a yard of it. Normally, you'd have to add shrapnel to ensure a kill, but that could harm others
within the room. Now, you can ensure a kill without collateral injuries, except through possible secondary fragmentation of a desk or such.
Chris The Great May 25th, 2006, 07:54 PM

Very interesting NBK! I read a journal a w hile ago and was w ondering why they were testing some comps with 50% tungsten powder content! I'll definately try picking some up
and seeing this increased destructive effect firsthand (well, maybe not firsthand, maybe from 100 feet).
Found the journal (attached). RDX/W 50/50 has much decreased VoD (6501 vs 8489) and Gurney Energy (1.89 vs 2.87), but a MUCH higher density (2.92 vs. 1.73, these are
NOT maximum densities, but the densities tested) and plate dent test (8.09 vs 7.71, or even 7.82 for HMX). Also, it is more resistant to heat, the explosion temperature (6*C
increase per minute) is 237*C vs 210*C for pure RDX.
akinrog May 25th, 2006, 09:23 PM

According to SIRI toxicity data, Tungsten is not listed as carcinogen/tumorogen. But I strongly suspect that the culprit is cobalt and nickel. Cobalt causes mutation in leukocytes
and tumors and nickel causes tumors and mutation too.
Here are the links.
http://ww w2.siri.org/msds/tox/f/q138/q374.html
nbk2000 May 25th, 2006, 10:24 PM

It's not the individual metals, but the synergistic effect of them combined, that's causing the cancer.
Tungsten, cobalt, or nickel by themselves have little effect when compared to the effects of the combined metals.
See the file at http://rapidshare.de/files/21396374/Tungsten_Cancer.pdf
Also, W powder is being used to make so-called 'Green' bullets. That is, lead-free bullets, that are supposedly enviromentally friendly, hence the 'Green'.
But could it be that the US government has known all along about the cancer effect, and is using the pretext of 'enviromentally friendly' as a cover for ensuring enemy deaths
through quick cancer? Hmmm...sneaky!
NoltaiR May 26th, 2006, 01:17 AM

I keep looking around but I can't find anymore info on this topic. Possible because a technology like this could be infinitely dangerous in the wrong hands. I keep trying to find
out why those elements w ould cause a cancer.
Based on the Wikipedia's defintion of cancer:
Cancer is a class of diseases or disorders characterized by uncontrolled division of cells and the ability of these cells to invade other tissues, either by direct grow th into adjacent
tissue through invasion or by implantation into distant sites by metastasis (in which cancer cells are transported through the blood or lymphatic system). Cancer may affect
people at all ages, but risk increases with age. It is one of the leading causes of death in developed countries.
Are these metals causing an abnormality in the DNA structure that is affecting cell division in the areas of the implantation?
Or are particles of this compound traveling through blood and disrupting something much more?
Metals like these (meaning there are many more like this) have a toxic potential to them because they have the ability to absorb though human tissue and affect a limitless
number of cells, such as the very common mercury or lead poisoning.
I really wish I could find more on this. And for all you home experimenters out there.. I probably would suggest staying away from something like this. Leave testing like this to
the guys with lab rats and proper chemical suits.
nbk2000 May 26th, 2006, 06:12 AM

I'm assuming you read the file?
They themselves don't know the exact reason for such an effect, but heavy metals, such as lead and mercury, are known for their cancer-causing abilities. And tungsten hasn't
come into really widespread use until recently, compared to lead and mercury, w hich have been known since ancient times.
The idea came to me that, rather than trying to kill someone outright, might it not be more terrifyingly effective to use such a thing to induce a ravenous cancer is someone as
punishment?
A very small explosive charge, such as a sheet of det-flex, is coated with a dusting of tungsten-alloy pow der, and placed somewhere where it will be in close proximity to the
victims body.
Upon detonation, thousands of particles are embedded under the skin, in such a manner that the surgeons will never be able to remove all of them. And the particles that
remain behind are foci for cancer formation.
The victim dies months later, withered and screaming, eaten from within. :)
Or, they beat it, but the treatments leave them feeble and bankrupt. :p
A Win-Win. :D
I wonder about covert implantation...
You know how there are now Band-Aids that have silver coating to improve anti-bacterial effectiveness? What about dusting some band-aids w ith tungsten and wait for the
victim to poison themselves w hen they use the tampered band-aids? The pow der will be absorbed into the tissue through the cut.
Tungsten pow der added to normal bullets could ensure the kill, albeit with too much delay to have any tactical effect. But at least you know you're taking them dow n w ith you.
S510 May 26th, 2006, 10:56 AM
If you could get it in a really fine pow der you could put it in a small sandwich bag and put it into the cone of firew orks and use them in an attack on special occasions to avoid
suspicion and set them off. Or you could use just the right size charge in a firework/rocket to make it airborne. Pretty low-tech. The only complications w ould be making it into a
fine enough powder, It could also be difficult making it a fine pow der without causing harm to the "assembler", but I suppose precautions could be taken to ensure their safety.
Heh, sorry. Just throwing out ideas. What does everyone think?
Sorry if it doesnt make sense, need sleep.
NoltaiR May 26th, 2006, 05:02 PM

Thats the gayest thing I have ever heard..
Chris The Great May 26th, 2006, 06:15 PM

A very small explosive charge, such as a sheet of det-flex, is coated with a dusting of tungsten-alloy pow der, and placed somewhere where it will be in close proximity to the
victims body.
Upon detonation, thousands of particles are embedded under the skin, in such a manner that the surgeons will never be able to remove all of them. And the particles that
remain behind are foci for cancer formation.
I had a very similar idea last night. It was using the tungsten doped explosives with the highly lethal blast effect thoug, rather than dusting an explosive with tungsten. In this
case, the blast effect w ill likely kill the target or at least horribly main them if it's only a small explosive charge. If they do survive, the tungsten powder which is embedded all
throughout their body gives them innumerous tumours w hich finish the job.
Sounds like the perfect explosive kill weapon.
S510 May 26th, 2006, 06:18 PM

Thats the gayest thing I have ever heard..
I agree:), But if you could actually find away to powder it then it could be used. Crude as it is. I'm just throw ing out options. I mean nbk came up with the DU dust or
something and when I heard Tungsten was a probobal carcinogen I just thought of a simple way to get it airborne w ithout people noticing. I mean it is easier to obtain than DU.
Nbk said he could get it.
nbk2000 May 26th, 2006, 06:28 PM

Don't try comparing yourself to me. :rolleyes:
DU dust is a radioactive alpha-particle emitter that's KNOWN as a highly potent carcinogen when inhaled. W is not.
Also, there's (as yet) no evidence that inhalation is a route for cancer formation, like subcutaneous embedding is.
S510 May 26th, 2006, 07:10 PM

Don't try comparing yourself to me. :rolleyes:
DU dust is a radioactive alpha-particle emitter that's KNOWN as a highly potent carcinogen when inhaled. W is not.
Also, there's (as yet) no evidence that inhalation is a route for cancer formation, like subcutaneous embedding is.
Ahh, I thought that it w as a route. I do apologies. I also didn't mean for my post to come of as me comparing myself to you, again apologies. I was just saying about the part
you said about DU dust, it got me thinking that since you could obtain Tungsten (probably) easier than DU.
Zach730 May 26th, 2006, 11:38 PM

This may be in fact the "perfect" poison so to speak. All you really would have to do is prick them w ith a needle containing tungsten-alloy powder on the tip in the back when
they're not looking and act sorry for poking them with something like pen as an excuse.
This way you can kill, or like NBK said leave then feeble and bankrupt, your enemies and random immigrants without getting caught.
I mean could they(meaning the corrupted government) figure out it was murder?

I must say, seeing someone trying to dodge the BFL section is quite amusing. There is really no need for apologies. Just do searches on the topic before you post. That way you
avoid posting something that has already been said, or posting something that w ill seem absurd to the rest of us.
On another note.. I have been waiting for NBK to post another one of this riddles... maybe another will come soon.. ;)
S510 May 27th, 2006, 07:38 AM

Ok.:). Back on topic.
All you really would have to do is prick them w ith a needle containing tungsten-alloy pow der on the tip in the back w hen they're not looking and act sorry for poking them with
something like pen as an excuse.
Reminds me of Georgi Markov:). I guess the case is too well known to be used against a person though. Even in his last few hours he w as complaining about his leg and about
how a man "jabbed" him. I guess the time period for the Tungsten to take affect might actually make it work.
akinrog May 27th, 2006, 09:33 AM

Don't get me w rong, but AFAI remember, NBK told synergetic effect of tungsten alloys do the cancer thing. If that's the case, how tungsten pow der shall do the job, if it's only
tungsten?
And just another idea came up to my mind: Chromium is also one of the worst know n tumoregenic, mutagenic substance. Maybe it's worth to try an alloy of tungsten+ nickel+
cobalt+ chromium. There was even an article which state chromium based porcelain colorings poses a cancer threat to human health when porcelain's glazing is eroded aw ay
due to use.
And I suspect tungsten serves as a carrier rather than as the main culprit since it's quite inert (although it oxidizes in the air, it's quite resistant to even mineral acids) and most
probably it prevents the body from metobolizing and eliminating the particles. Regards

Well that w as the point I w as trying to get across. There are so many other heavy metals who have the same ill-effects on the human body.. so I couldn't quite figure out the
sudden interest in tungsten.
And in the REALLY heavy metals, you start having elements w ith radioactive effects that would be far more dangerous.
I don't think having a powder spray w ould really do anything. It w ould have to be at least pellet sized to make an entry into the skin...
teshilo May 27th, 2006, 03:18 PM

Well that w as the point I w as trying to get across. There are so many other heavy metals who have the same ill-effects on the human body.. so I couldn't quite figure out the
sudden interest in tungsten.
And in the REALLY heavy metals, you start having elements w ith radioactive effects that would be far more dangerous.
Yes, powdered Berillium described in industrial toxicolocy as creating berriliose .Used a small quanity flash powder for pulverisation reduced w eight and risk detection .This only
joke in mail small bang :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
nbk2000 May 27th, 2006, 05:57 PM

Even dust sized particles can penetrate the skin if they're driven to Mach 2 by an explosion.
And remember, for the longest time, lead and asbestos were thought safe too.
xyz May 29th, 2006, 05:59 AM

Does anyone know whether the commercially available W powder is pure or has nickel and cobalt alloyed with it?
I'm assuming alloyed as I imagine pure W would be rather annoying to powder.
nbk2000 May 29th, 2006, 07:34 AM

Cobalt doesn't seem to be a normal constituant of the commercial powder.
Iron and nickel seem to be the most common. Cobalt is usually less than 0.5% (max) of the remainder.
xyz May 29th, 2006, 08:40 AM

I've been looking around and noticed this:
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/2-BOXES-OF-ZIMMER-WIRE-SUTURES-NR_W0QQitemZ7623794620QQcategoryZ31469QQssPageName ZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Medical suturing wire composed of a nickel/cobalt/chromium/tungsten alloy (doesn't give proportions though). Nothing is mentioned about any kind of coating on it.
I assume that either it doesn't cause cancers due to a different alloy composition (maybe only trace amounts of nickel or cobalt, or possibly the chromium makes it safe) or
because it will only be in the person for a week or tw o before being removed.
Goes to show that causing cancer isn't as simple as putting a tungsten alloy under the skin though, albeit for only a short time. If I had the time I'd buy some and implant small
pieces of it into some rats and see what happened. I don't have the time to look after rats though, let alone for 4-5 months. Maybe someone else here is in a better position to
conduct such an experiment?
On a different note, how hard would it be to manufacture a tungsten alloy in the ratios used in the study? I'm assuming very difficult due to the crazy melting point of the stuff,
and even if you did get some alloyed, grinding it into 30mg fragments w ould presumably be a little challenging. Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but it doesn't seem
feasible to the average (or above-average for that matter) E&W experimenter.
EDIT: Yes, the nickel w ould mean that the melting point of the alloy was lower if it acts as a binder for the W, but then I think it might not perform like the alloy used in the
study (i.e. not being a true alloy, due to the intimacy of its composition being limited by the size of the W powder particles).
nbk2000 May 29th, 2006, 12:38 PM

I believe that the fragments are sintered pow der alloys, not melted together alloys. Meaning that they're porous, at the cellular scale.
These fragments are preformed for use in weapons by a highly competent armaments company, Aerojet. I'm assuming that they knew what they were doing w hen they used
this particular alloy, and it's later effects. If not, then it's just a happy coincidence for them, eh? ;)
FU TI May 29th, 2006, 03:30 PM

So far only confirmed carcinogenic Cr compound are pow dered sodium-chromate or dichromate AFAIR.
Ni and Cr can cause alergic reactions in certain person ( some people in my family have that problem and can't have any bracelets, earings, watches etc. that aren't made of (or
electroplated with) noble metals as gold or silver).
NBK you said yourself that for skin penetration powder need extreme speed, but that shortens the radius of effect. I would still count on inhalation as better way for intoxication.
Good maybe for silent kill as mentioned before but you would need to use it without explosive to achieve that. Maybe your aerosol spreading electronic device posted few
weeks ago?
If anyone has access to medical journal please look for professional illness of workers in lightbulb manufacture if there is a grain of truth in this then I expect to find a bits of
data there to confirm the the story NBK find out.
xyz May 29th, 2006, 09:22 PM

I thought that they might be porous, as 27.5mg seemed rather too light for a 1x2mm piece of W alloy.
charger May 29th, 2006, 11:16 PM

The metal described in the PDF sounds very similar to an alloy made close to me, called Stellite. I found the MSDS on the metal http://www .armstrongblue.com/Publications/
msds__stellite_tips.htm is describes the carcinogenicity product.
nbk2000 May 30th, 2006, 01:07 AM

~28mg for a 1x2mm fragment is about 70% of the maximum density for W.
Since it's (likely) porous, I'd imagine that helps with trapping cells within it, extending contact time w ith the metal and providing a place for the cancer to form.
akinrog May 30th, 2006, 08:42 AM

So far only confirmed carcinogenic Cr compound are pow dered sodium-chromate or dichromate AFAIR.
According to the following link from hazard.com chromium metal is tumorigenic, mutagenic.
In the tumorigenic data section, it's claimed that 2160 microgram/kg/6 W dose administered intravenously to rats, causes gastrointestinal tumors, lymphoma.
But what I did not clearly distinguish is whether this is chromium metal or chromium compound.
However, when one enters chromium keyword on search page, results contains a few links and amongst these links both chromium and chromium metal points to same link. So
I assume, the above link is for chromium metal. HTH.
FU TI May 30th, 2006, 01:46 PM

Thanks akinrog this is interesting. The info on the page is probably about metal as it state that it is implant in the method of administration section. Salts could be applied by
syringe so there wouldn't be rational to apply it this w ay. Only work that page is referenced it for that kind of activity is little old and I don't know w ould those results stood
current standards for publication. I can't read those papers as I don't have them available but it w ould mean a lot of difference if they implanted piece of chromium plate or steel
plate that it w as electroplated as this process involve usage of chromate salt. I always ask myself could organism convert chromium metal or low er valence salt to higher
oxidation state?
Kingtaling June 10th, 2006, 09:59 PM

I picked up on this with my question about tungsten and flash pow der using the search feature (go me)
In case you dont know already, you can buy 99.9% pure tungsten rather cheap from welding supply shops. my job puts me in contact with it nearly every other day, along with
the dust from grinding it down (to point it)
more so, Some of the other tungsten alloys I use are thoriated, lanthanated, and ceriated. On the package it even says thoriated tungsten (2%) is considered somewhat
radioactive!
For the record though, people who have been exposed to tungsten alloy and it's mild counterparts for several years (my father for instance, over 20 years... a Co-worker, over
40 years of welding with tungsten and dust witout a dust mask or protection) are still alive and walking and cancer free.
There has to be some other connection?

It is almost certainly down to the porous nature of the pellet, which gives a massively higher surface area, and hence far higher dose. I suspect NBK is right, and it is deliberate,
but has been kept quiet. I'm sure we will see what happens, and I w onder if this story might get picked up by others beyond here?
akinrog June 11th, 2006, 12:40 PM

... a Co-w orker, over 40 years of welding with tungsten and dust witout a dust mask or protection) are still alive and walking and cancer free.
There has to be some other connection?
NBK said synergetic effect (of tungsten alloy, which is claimed to contain cobalt, nickel, etc.) is responsible for the cancer, so having almost pure tungsten powder shall not do
the job, I believe. Regards

Of course, we all know people who have smoked for 40 years and died of a car crash. Welders, I seem to recall, do get cancer more often than most.
http://ww w4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309076293?OpenDocument and http://www .asph.org/fridayletter/article_view.cfm?fl_index=1407&fle_index= 3535 both

seem to blame Arsenic in low concentrations as a major cause of cancer. It seems a likely impurity for a low grade of Tungsten powder. Cobalt is also a nasty substance, and
Nickel triggers allergic reactions in a large percentage of the population after prolonged skin contact. Even without the Tungsten part, you w ould likely still be in trouble if the
metal mix wasn't removed. If they use a little oil when pressing the pow der, that, too, would be likely to cause an immune reaction, as mineral oils have also been shown to
cause cancer at a higher rate - this is why you shouldn't keep that oily rag in your jeans/overalls pocket for checking the dipstick and shining the chrome!
akinrog June 12th, 2006, 01:50 PM

If they use a little oil when pressing the powder, that, too, would be likely to cause an immune reaction, as mineral oils have also been shown to cause cancer at a higher rate -
this is why you shouldn't keep that oily rag in your jeans/overalls pocket for checking the dipstick and shining the chrome!
I remember reading a document (a user manual for agricultural tractors) which states leaks of high pressure hydraulic fluids may penetrate into skin if the leaks are checked by
hands causing severe injury (i.e. gangrene). :eek:
And the document says lubricants (especially brake fluid) can cause cancer. Regards
teshilo June 12th, 2006, 02:16 PM

Hmm ,where obtain W? I know what big mercury lamp contain piece of W...
nbk2000 June 12th, 2006, 02:34 PM

Non-lead fishing w eights are made from tungsten powder in polymeric binder.
Kingtaling June 13th, 2006, 02:56 AM

I've gotten so much tranny fluid/hydraulic fluid/gasoline/oil/etc... on me over the last 5 years training for my ASE its unreal. I alw ays knew they were carcenogenic though- it
just sucks to hear someone say it.
I get to cut back on the w elding real soon, I guess I need to hire a guy to do the cancer causing parts of my job for me, lol.
nbk2000 July 7th, 2006, 04:24 AM

I found the patent issued to Aerojet for fabrication of sintered heavy-metal alloy for use in weapons.
5760378
he compacts are formed of tungsten heavy alloy. As used herein the term "tungsten heavy alloy" refers to a sintered tungsten powder alloy with a matrix metal of nickel,
copper, cobalt and/or iron and mixtures thereof, the tungsten content being at least 85 w t % and density being at least 16.0 gm/cm3.
As previously explained, the larger the size of the compact the more critical the tungsten to matrix metal ratio. The tungsten heavy alloy includes at least about 85 wt %
tungsten, and preferably betw een about 85-97 wt % tungsten. The matrix metal includes no more than about 15 wt % of nickel, copper, and/or iron and mixtures thereof, and
preferably, between about 3-15 w t % of nickel, copper, and/or iron and mixtures thereof.
The limit of about 85 w t % tungsten and 15 w t % matrix metal is established based upon the ability of the tungsten skeleton to structurally support the compact in the liquid
phase during liquid phase sintering.

Kingtailing, it is nasty stuff, but as long as you wash w ell, you should be fine.
It is getting this shit into cuts that is the big problem. I had a cut that had some oil in it, is simply wouldn't heal properly until I realised, and then I had to re-open it (small hole
with a needle) and get the tiny bit of black oil out, and it was healed the next day!
elliot July 11th, 2006, 11:57 AM

Hi i was just reading through this article and, i know it sounds horrible but, in a war, or any other place that these shrapnel shells are used, dont you want to kill as many people
as possible and as efficiently as possible so w ouldn't the cancer be concidered a 'good' side effect to the army using it?

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > Blackwater range days
Log in
View Full Version : Blackwater range days
Jacks Complete S e p t e m b e r 3 0th, 2006, 07:31 PM

Yes, I'd love to go on one of these!
http://arm edforcesjournal.com /blackwater/?s=2003_videos

http://arm edforcesjournal.com /blackwater/index.php?s=2005_side5
Both these links take you to the Arm ed Forces Journal "Shoot-out at Blackwater" pages. The first is 2003, the secon d is 2005,
and 2004 is pretty interesting, too.
You can watch some cracking video clips, showcasing som e of the best new ideas com ing from the US arm ' s t r a d e . O n e o f t h e
d e s i g n s I c a m e up with ten ye ars ago is shown in 2005, and there are lots of other ones that we could use in our ideas. The
videos of the capabilities of the latest bulletpro of glasses is interesting, as are things like the 37,000 pound (weight) guard hut
with 5" thick reinforced walls that they proceed to shoot a whole lot with various weapons systems to little effect.
T h e 7 6 m m h igh im pulse launcher is quite fun, as is the 850 round "burst" from a fairly standard looking M60, which
presumably has a ceramic barrel of som e f o r m .
If you are on broadband, have a gander. If not (due to BT screwing with your connection) impress on a friend!
http://arm edforcesjournal.com /blackwater/index.php?s=2003_side1 is probably the best explanation/introduction to it.
nbk2000 S e p t e m b e r 3 0th, 2006, 07:57 PM

I g o t a h o o t o u t o f t h e H i g h I m pulse W e a p o n d e m o , w h e n p e o p l e w e r e T O L D t o l e a n i n t o i t , a n d s t i l l g o t k n o c k e d o n t h e i r
asses. :p

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > coilguns/gauss guns
Log in
View Full Version : coilguns/gauss guns
Wiltshire January 16th, 2007, 07:30 PM

http://www.penguinslab.com/coilgun.htm - may some of you have seen this, maybe not but, coilguns are a pretty cool "space aged" - well, not really, weapon. A coil gun is
an electronic gun, soundless and can shoot any ferrous projectile (metal containing iron) These weapons work by creating a strong electronic feild. It seems all coilguns are
pretty much hobby projects by electronics freaks. If you made one big enough (with a capacitor the size of a fork lift, or maybe in a parallel circuit?) It could possibly be the
idea soundless weapon (no suppressors needed) and If you decided to buy a fibre glass repair kit, you could make the body of the gun and build a true fully functional "star
wars" weapon!
festergrump January 16th, 2007, 07:44 PM

http://roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=695
http://72.14.253.104/custom?q=cache:T9Nz9314urQJ:www.roguesci.org/theforum/improvised-weapons/695-railgun-
2.html+%22coil+gun%22,%22rail+gun%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3
My search button works...
Jacks Complete January 17th, 2007, 08:57 AM

I'd go for a non-ferrous projectile like an aluminium or copper slug for a coilgun, you will get higher conductivity, and hence a higher EMF pushing the slug out. Using iron tends
to get you no place fast, since that coil is a magnet, and iron flies towards the magnet. You can still do it, but you need microsecond switching and coil timings, which if you
aren't big into PICs that are immune to EMP can be tricky.

Here's a related article about recent testing for large scale ship-mounted weaponry:
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/012007/01172007/251373
64 megajoules, 200-250 nautical mile range, 3.2 kilogram warheadless projectile = similar to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph... a mere six minutes from launch.
(Tomahawk missiles can only cover that distance in 8 minutes).
nbk2000 January 17th, 2007, 09:13 PM

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm says 550MPH for the Tomahawk, so it'd take half an hour for it to cover the same distance the rail gun projectile can do in
a few minutes. :)
sdjsdj January 18th, 2007, 09:23 AM

similar to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph...
USE
Y'know, that's the best description of the principle of why kinetic bombardment weaponry works I've ever seen.
PARAGRAPH
Excellent article, but personally I don't see why the US pursues railgun research; after all, a B-52 does a better job of obliterating everything in an area than just about
anything else, and stealth aircraft can deliver complete and utter devastation with pinpoint accuracy - something no railgun is likely to do for a while, considering the G-forces
acting on their projectile would shred any guidance system.
BREAKS
Also, unless nuclear-powered MBTs are developed, the range of a railgun is unlikely ever to get beyond 200 miles inland; beyond this, even at the massive velocities in
question, wind etc. would destroy accuracy, limiting its utility against many countries.
NBK
True, it may make an uninterceptable ship-to-ship weapon, and its psychological value would be immense, but I still have my doubts . . .
Hirudinea January 18th, 2007, 08:35 PM

considering the G-forces acting on [a railgun] projectile would shred any guidance system.
I don't know about that, during Project HARP, a project to launch a projectile into low earth orbit (eventually), using a big ass gun, many of the projectiles did contain hardened
electronics that withstood the accelleration of their launch, which was somwhere around 3.5 km/s, which could also work in a railgun projectile, and of course this was some 40
years ago.

...but personally I don't see why the US pursues railgun research...
It's certainly for price-cutting effect.
Every rocket or missile we don't have to launch saves a million dollars or so, and that can add up pretty quickly.
No, we tax-payers won't get to see any of that money back. It'll be split up between the self-appointed elites while they pat each other on the bum and issue each other
another raise and a "Well done, old friend"... :mad:
But even if the guidance system onboard a projectile couldn't withstand the G-forces involved, what with the calculations of windage and trajectory possible today, I think they
could track and pinpoint a target two miles away and drive that puppy pretty much wherever they wanted to, even down to a mansized target without any onboard projectile
guidance systems... so long as it was stationary or didn't have an erratic path of travel prone to change in six minutes or less.
Select target from satelite screen, highlite, press TRACK and wait for variables to register and calculate... confirm target on screen with crosshair reticle and *left-click*. Next
target? :) Each click costs about as much as one of Dubya's breakfast biscuits...

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > New kind of blast proof fabric
Log in
View Full Version : New kind of blast proof fabric
monkeyboy December 7th, 2007, 07:34 AM

Just read this article:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/blast_proof-fabric-defies-belief/zetix-blast+proof-fabric-resists-multiple-car-bombs-makes-our-heads-explode-330343.php
Sounds like some pretty revolutionary stuff.
Never heard of helical-auxetics, either.
I don't know if this should be a new topic or not, if not, feel free to move it...
iHME December 7th, 2007, 01:28 PM

Interesting stuff. I can already think the possibilities of this material, think about buying a few square meters of that stuff and lining your car with it.
It wouldn't stop a rifle but the "soft" pistol ammunition used by law enforcement could be stopped. And the cheap price could bring down the price of soft bullet-resistant vests,
to a more affordable level. Of course IF the material preforms as well in large amounts of force directed into a small area as a large amount of energy directed into a large
area. If thats the case I could find my self buying a stock of it "just to make sure", as it would be probably banned by politicians immediately after some robbers would have
made improvised bodyarmor from it, giving them an "unfair" edge over normal police officers, how sad... :D
Interesting material, very interesting material, I have to say.
LibertyOrDeath December 7th, 2007, 05:37 PM

Technically it's not an improvised weapon, but it IS an interesting topic. And if such fabric is ever made available to us "serfs," then it could prove useful for a thing or two.
The company's website has more information:
http://www.auxetix.com/defence.htm
As described there, this fabric is designed to let the blast itself pass through while capturing the shrapnel. So it's really not "blast proof," and you wouldn't want to be close to a
blast even if this fabric was between it and you, even if it wasn't penetrated by shrapnel. The blast wave could enter your bodily orifices and do damage.
There is, however, a paragraph at the above link that speculates on the possibility of blast reduction:
In an alternative implementation, it is intended that the auxetic property of these yarns is exploited to create a laminated textile which responds to the onset of a blast front by
opening up arrays of pores in each layer. These let the blast pass through from one layer to the next, successively reducing the energy it carries. The amount of blast reduction
that such a textile could achieve is yet to be quantified, however, any reduction would bring significant benefits as the initial shock-wave and following air-blast caused by an
explosion is responsible for certain primary injuries such as ear drum rupture and lung collapse, and many tertiary injuries (occupants being bodily thrown against objects).
I hope such blast reduction isn't feasible and that this material falls short of "revolutionary" (which seems to be the case at this point). In this day and age, "defense" is
generally a euphemism for "aggression against other countries" or "state domination of the domestic population." I'm particularly concerned about the latter.
Oh well...a shaped charge projectile will make mincemeat out of this fabric anyway. Also, I doubt this material would work well against rifles (for the same reasons that apply
to Kevlar).
Demolition Man March 30th, 2008, 05:35 PM

from the same site, more recently
http://gizmodo.com/371357/slash+proof-armored-tee-is-lightweight-machine-washable
Maybe wear layers, as it's fashionable? Heh. Now all we need is actually stab proof, besides wearing Class IV armor
Demolition Man April 2nd, 2008, 12:59 PM

Apparently, Gizmodo is getting a rash of bullet/weapon proof material in recently. Must be the economy.
http://gizmodo.com/375006/defender-hoodie-look-good-avoid-bullets
This actually gives me my own idea for those ebay'd Class IIA vests you can get cheap. Of course, you can always get yourself a kevlar suit, straight from China, but you have
to add your own plate pockets, they don't come included.
Charles Owlen Picket April 3rd, 2008, 11:32 AM

Stab proofing is MUCH more difficult to accomplish! Ask anyone who designs this stuff and they'll tell you that "stab proof" is almost impossible. Correctional vests are VERY
expensive and they have a limit (which is very difficult to quantify). The thin "needle bayonet" is a damn difficult thing to defeat. An ice-pick type device almost impossible
with fabric alone.
Stab resistant is easy and most mil-spec flack armor is tough to stab; especially with a wide or thick instrument. The most difficult thing to work against is the thin stabbing
weapon driven by the weight of the wielder.

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > New OICW idea/Hybrid weapon
Log in
View Full Version : New OICW idea/Hybrid weapon
-=HeX=- February 1st, 2008, 06:26 PM

Hi guys, I know that there is already an OICW thread in existance, however seeing as it is on the last page and I dont want to commit yet another bout of necromancy... I
ended up starting this thread. Sorry if I am breaking the rules or anything, I apologise in advance!
This is an idea for a new OICW idea that has been rattling arroung my head for quite some time. If you dont know what an OICW is, then Google is you best friend!
My idea revolves around two interesting ideas of w eapons: the Gyrojet, and the Coil or Gauss gun. Each are not used in the field for various reasons, however in a combo
weapon it is very practical and there are many possibilities!
Firstly, the Gyrojet. There was a member who suggested using a shotgun round to both propell and ignite the Gyro round. (see pic)
Well, this removes the problems of ignition, bad close up velocity, and simplicity of use, no fancy ignition systems. So if a Saiga 5.12k w as moddeled to fire this kind of round,
you w ould have a vey powerful weapon to w ork off!
However, it w ould have recoil, and it would not be silent. Also, I am not a gunsmith, nor am I very know legeable about the workings of firearms, so could someone please tel
me if it would be workable or safe?
Now: the coilgun http://www .instructables.com/id/Coilgun-Handgun go there to find a good coil gun plan, I do not theink it would be too dificult to add a clip, make it semi/fully
automatic and have a solenoid controlled breech feed-ing mech. Also, one would replace the soda straw one, and add a removable and rechargeable battery pack.
Coil guns are not to hard to make, I have made one and it was fairly easy to build, and it works! However, its ergonomics are shite, it is large and bulky and its batteries like to
fall out. Thats not to mention its long load/charge time, but it is powerful (53 caps in paralell).
Maybe we should use a multistage coilgun for additional range/ power w ith the subsequent coils optically triggered, however, that adds complications, and bulk, and does not
KISS. The coilgun would be bullpup style, with a sten style mag (rear mounted)
(see pic)
The coilgun would be mounted under the Saiga (coilgun is like a Streyr Aug) so it acts as a foregrips. The coilgun would have extra capbanks (in the stock of the Saiga, which
was modified to incorporate them) to allow a faster rate of fire.
In front of the 'foregrips' there would be a 'picatinny rail' (sp?) to allow oneto clip on extra w eapons/ utilities. Here are a few:
-Powerlet propelled grenade launcher (search for thread)

-IR illuminator for night combat
-A 12 gauge solonoid fired, short barreled, semi auto, shotgun with a 4 round mag.
-Anything you can imagine!
This would the have a Night Site added to it, and voila- OICW!!!
Also: Mr Cool: IIRC You have both built a coilgun and Gyro rounds, and fired them, w hat is your opinion on the practicality?
Amachinist: You proposed the Shotgun fired rocket idea, do you have any ideas/theorys?
Jacks Complete; You seem to be the forums firearms expert, do you have any ideas/input/criticisms, your input is valued!
sparkchaser February 6th, 2008, 05:38 PM

The only problems that I can see w ith the Gyrojet cartridge concept you refer to;
1) Initial stabilization. As the round exits the barrel, it will be inherently unstable until the jets kick on and impart spin. Once the jets kick, the round would fly off in whichever
direction it was oriented in. This could be countered by using angled grooves in the round's point itself, similar to a "rifled" shotgun round, but these grooves would create
instability as the round went supersonic after the jets kicked on. You could use expanding fins similar to the shotgun grenade designed for the AA-12 automatic shotgun, but that
would require some serious machining skill, and negates the concept of the gyrojet completely. I think that this concept would be better used in the high impulse rocket concept
presented by NBK2000 aw hile back.
2) Cartridge length. The round itself would need to be relatively long, in my estimation, and wouldn't fit in the chamber of a standard shotgun, let alone a magazine. A
magazine sized to fit something this big would be a pain to use. The magazine for a standard Saiga 12 is unw ieldy and difficult to use and it only carries 23/4 " shells.
This could all be countered by creating a round that w ould ignite while still in the barrel after firing, but I would think that it would be a tall order for your average home
gunsmith/machinist/chemist.
-=HeX=- February 8th, 2008, 05:20 PM

I understand w hat you are saying, but in my idea the rocket is ignited by the burning DBSP as it is propelled dow n the barrel, and the barrel is rifled like a MLRS projectile- a
stud in groove- to initially stabilise it before the rockets canted ports cause enough spin to self stabilize.
The round would be as big as an Estes engine so the mag wouldn't be too bulky, and the chamber and feed would be appropriately modded to feed the round. The machining
would be a bitch though, I agree.
Any thoughts on the gyro propellant though?
sparkchaser February 10th, 2008, 04:12 AM

O.k. I see. If you're planning Estes size, you may as w ell go w ith Estes motors! I'm thinking that stage motors would work best since there're no delay or ejection charges, just
straight propellant, and the formulation's done already. Knock out the nozzle clay and repack into casing of your choice, add nozzles and viola!
As for lugs, make sure they're round and hardened. Very hardened. If your lugs flatten and deform w hile passing down the barrel you run into the same problem as the grooves
in the nose. Instability either from supersonic shockwaves or because the spin imparted by the jets overtakes the spin caused by the action of the lugs' flat spot in the
slipstream, causing a localized low pressure spot that would pull in a strange tangent. Also make sure that the lugs are behind the center of pressure to begin w ith.
Nozzles w ill be tough in a case that size, but I'm sure you can figure that little bit out. One thing to think of w ill be that the porpellant grain may have a problem with crumbling
from the shock of firing, not to mention the hot gasses slamming in from the DB. Maybe a nitrocellulose lacquer mixed in sparingly as an adhesive might help keep it intact and
not overpressure the case.
HolyHair February 11th, 2008, 05:28 PM

Why don't you try replacing the gyro round w ith a hyper velocity rocket?
-=HeX=- February 14th, 2008, 08:30 PM

Sparkchaser: an Estes Rocket engine is useless for horizontal trajectories. Thats because of too low impulse created.
I have considered the HVR system but I believe that the sonic boom would be a bad thing. Good point about the luis though.
I visualise an AN/ Al/ C/ AMMONIUM DICHROMATE/ POLYESTER RESIN propellant as being the one. Has anybody tried it out, IIRC Alen invented it.
-=HeX=- March 11th, 2008, 04:09 PM

I have done a lot of rethinking about the gyrojet/saiga part of my system. Having spoken recently to a soldier w ho had used the sagia shotgun in training exercises, I have
decided to not use it as the gyrojet launcher.
According to him the sagia shotgun is too cumbersome for additional attachments and it has a crap clip. It is too bulky. Also, apparently it w eighs a ton (metaphorically).
Also, I am having doubts as to the usefullness of the coilgun part. I know that it is silent and has almost no firing signature, but w ill it penetrate pig vests?
Could a shotgun be made in the style of a sten gun? Or is the open bolt and blow back design unsuitable?
a3990918 March 13th, 2008, 02:14 AM

The only problems that I can see w ith the Gyrojet cartridge concept you refer to;
1) Initial stabilization. As the round exits the barrel, it will be inherently unstable until the jets kick on and impart spin. Once the jets kick, the round would fly off in whichever
direction it was oriented in. This could be countered by using angled grooves in the round's point itself, similar to a "rifled" shotgun round, but these grooves would create
instability as the round went supersonic after the jets kicked on. You could use expanding fins similar to the shotgun grenade designed for the AA-12 automatic shotgun, but that
would require some serious machining skill, and negates the concept of the gyrojet completely. I think that this concept would be better used in the high impulse rocket concept
presented by NBK2000 aw hile back.
This could all be countered by creating a round that w ould ignite while still in the barrel after firing, but I would think that it would be a tall order for your average home
gunsmith/machinist/chemist.
Would the use of Sabots and a lightly rifled barrel solve the problem or, as usual, am I missing the point? :confused:
sparkchaser March 14th, 2008, 03:49 PM

Hmmmm...quite an interesting thought a3990918. That's definately not a direction I would've thought of. I don't know if the sabot would be able to grip the round well enough
to give a usefull spin, but it is a thought!
Maybe lugs from the sabot could fit into recesses in the round just tightly enough for a good torsional grip and then w hen the sabot separates, it takes the lugs with it leaving no
drag intucing projections. Use a good PTFN sabot jacket w ith metalic lugs cast in on the projectile side and make the whole package a couple of thousandths of an inch (or
tenths of a millimeter) bigger than the rifled bore.
Might take some experimenting to get the aerodynamics right so that there aren't strange low pressure areas caused by the recesses on the round, but I think it might be easier
to figure out than if there were projections hangin' out in the slipstream.
a3990918 March 14th, 2008, 07:37 PM

Hmmmm...quite an interesting thought a3990918. That's definately not a direction I would've thought of. I don't know if the sabot would be able to grip the round well enough
to give a usefull spin, but it is a thought!
Quite to the contrary, sabots have been in use for a long time (ie. a .50 caliber w eapon firing a .30cal projectile to acheive super high muzzle velocities)
http://rapidshare.com/files/99585061/.50_Sabot_Info.rar.html
Another train of though might be the use of rotating bands, ala Artillery, Naval gun etc projectiles. Or even reviving the old squeeze bore technology. High FPS at muzzle,
significant spin until jets fire etc... :cool:
EOD April 21st, 2008, 03:19 AM

The Gyrojet idea w as tried in the 60s and din't work so w ell.
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg172-e.htm
During the early sixties a small company MB Associates, founded by Robert Maynard and Arthur Bill, brought up a new weapon that was intended to revolutionize the world of
small arms. Known as Gyrojet, it w as sort of hand-held, multi-shot rocket launcher. It w as advertised as a silent and capable to fire under-water, but in real life Gyrojet
weapons turned out to be extremely unreliable and dramatically inaccurate; also, these w eapons were rather ineffective at point-black distances, gaining its full pow er only at
ranges of about 40-60 meters (yards). Few of the Gyrojet "pistols" made its way to the jungles of Vietnam in the hands of US military officers, who bought them at their own
funds, but no successful reports ever appeared, and by late sixties the Gyrojet project w as doomed.
amachinist April 22nd, 2008, 11:22 PM

The round is based upon the old military rocket assisted howitzer round.
Case: 25mm flare case long type ~4.0"

Case modification: Patterned after 40mm grenade
Sabot housing: Patterned after 1970's style 12ga 500 gr slug (rapidly banned)
Rocket: Este's style with secondary primer and delay charge to ignite propellant
Desired function:
30" rifled barrel a muzzle velocity of 700-900 ft/sec.
Propellant initiation 48 - 70" after exiting muzzle
Effective range 2,000 yards
Armor piercing capability
Rifle construction: Patterned after Maadi-Griffin.
Will attempt to post cross sectional sketchs of round w hen time permits.

The coil-gun pat of this is pretty useless unless you are simply trying to get around the law. Swap it for a high capacity moderated short barrelled .22 built into the grip. Yes, it
won't be accurate, but you've got your "super-gun" for long range armour penetration. Up close, multiple low powered shots will suppress, then you end it with the "main gun".
Getting something like the gyrojet to work would be awesome. Yes, there would be a sonic boom. You'll hopefully be pushing Mach 5 with your projectiles. If you can get it
launched at M1.5 from your "rifle" or whatever, then great. Cap it with a tungsten carbide tip, and you'll be punching through pretty much anything you can hit. Of course, the
accu5racy is likely to be shite, but that's where a seeker head comes in. Think micro- and nano-electronics.
Woland_91 May 19th, 2008, 07:58 AM

This sounds to me as someone trying to jam an armour-piercing rocket laucher on a battlerifle w ith a grenade laucher. Which is a good idea, really. The only problem I see is
that your gauss gun doesn't w ork as a battlerifle, or a carbine. It is more like a WW2 M1 Garand rifle. Plus, you would have to carry a nice bulk of batteries (unless you manage
to get your hands on some lithium batteries!).
The main reason the military haven't tried to research MACs as infatery w eapons is because they don't really outperform existing weapon systems; there is no clear advantage
of using a coil gun over a SCAR. I think the only place they are trying to use them is naval w arfare, where they can fit those huge capacitors on the ships. And even then, they
prefer rail guns to coil guns.
You can always try to create a hybrid Gauss sniper firing solid projectiles stabilised with w ings with a 9mm SMG attached at the bottom ;)
-=HeX=- May 20th, 2008, 06:03 AM

Jacks complete: yes, the coilgun was to circumvent the law. Right now I am redesigning a new weapon system based on the oicw concept. Same gyrojet base weapon and a
submachinegun mounted underneath it. Maybe I w ill work on the close quarter battle sniper rifle project again. I will scan in the draw ings w hen I have the time.
I also am getting parts for a coilgun sniper rifle gun with 3 stages and each stage having a 500 camera flash capacitor cap bank. Can anyone find out for me what amount of
foot pounds a 5 gram projectile w ould impart at 1% efficiency?
Yafmot has told me quite a lot about coilguns and I w ill impart his knowledge to you when I have time. I also cant w ait for crazywhiteguys write up on the Ramset rifle.
dariannasc May 24th, 2008, 03:39 AM

Would it be possible to use the batteries themselves as rounds?

-=Hex=-, you won't get around the UK law that easily! If you have a rail to guide the projectile, then that is also an offence, as you are launching a "missile" (Yes, anything
thrown or propelled is a "missile" not just the rocket engine powered things w e normally think of at first) so they can still arrest you and lock you up.
The law in the UK concerning guns has just about no loopholes. A guy tried to get around it by having the bullet stick out the end of the chamber - hence not "a lethal barrelled
weapon" but the court ruled the chamber was the barrel, and he went down for some years. Take care! Read up on the treatment of Luty if you remain unconvinced.
dariannasc, you probably could, but w ith every shot you fired you would be reducing the pow er available for the remaining rounds. Unless you could find some neat way of
turning the entire output of a single battery into energy all at once... And that's called a capacitor! (Or an explosive. ;-) )
A few years back I came up with the idea of using a chemical propellant to fire a "bullet" made from neodymium magnetic material through a coil. This sharp pulse would then
be used to propel the actual projectile, without the usual issues of the barrel melting, the upper limits of gas velocity for a given pressure & temperature, etc. I never did
anything with it. You could actually get an even sharper magnetic pulse with even more power by destroying a high flux coil with an explosion - I've read of 200T! :-O - and I
suspect that firing a high powered magnet into a steel (or other hard) plate to destroy it might give interesting results. Of course, the shock of the acceleration might kill a fragile
neodymium magnet dead...
-=HeX=- August 20th, 2008, 01:28 PM

Jesus, almost forgot this thread w ith the damned upheavals in my life.
Ah Jacks Complete, Irish firearm law has not yet banned coilguns, provided their impact energy is less than one joule. And w ith a simple disconnection of some of the cap
banks... The w eapon becomes legal. However my coilguns arent turning out so good, the charging is proving to be a bitch. But with my new design I have that beaten. I also
have blow n up literally HUNDREDS of caps, and only have like 60 left. So its gonna be a one stager. I may mount it below a pipe shotgun or something as a 'silent' weapon,
compared to the 12 gauge.
That is, w hen I have time and money, my budget is being stretched thin. First I will finish my OTC lead azide testing, my work with TATP, and some w ork on dynamites.
EDIT:
Oh, I am also working on an isotropic radiator using explosively pumped xenon tubes. Initial testing of the device was positive. Now to perfect it, and weaponize it. I emailed a
report on its first projectile test to waveguider a w hile back, it was a basic Iso pulse device on a simple rocket. It was a beauty, I fired it a month ago. The next one, a groung
test, is being slowly brepared. I hope it can produce the effect I want to see again!
iHME October 2nd, 2008, 07:13 PM

Making a simple OICW style weapon w ould be fun.
A simple smg or similar on top and a single shot pipe shotgun under its barrel, to provide the fire pow er needed in desperate situations.
If 40mm cases are available one could make a single shot 40mm launcher for it, but that would be rather unoriginal. IIRC 40mm cases designed for the m203 work at 400psi.
Jacks Complete October 4th, 2008, 07:56 AM

You'll need a fairly simple electronic charging system to avoid blow ing your caps to bits. Basically, the hardest part about a coilgun or other capacitor-fired device is judging how
much pow er is left in the bank. For repeatability, you want to ensure it is roughly the same total energy discharged each time. Since you can discharge to zero very easily, you
then need a transistor based timer to recharge to the required pow er level, by simply turning on the charger circuit for a precise length of time.
What are you using for your trigger and switch?
I used a set of massive bridge diodes and ran mine off the mains via a variac and welder transformer. (This was a railgun) Of course, we fried the diodes instantly, and ended
up with ~ 3 volts at better than 400A. The cap bank was charged in seconds. We used the steel ball bearing projectile as the circuit closer, but all we ever got was a hot ball
bearing and some minor sparking.
I've never tried a coilgun in the same way.
-=HeX=- October 4th, 2008, 02:18 PM

Well, I worked out the amount of joules the bank has, its a whopping 144000 joules of electrical energy, 240 volts at about 5 farads. I got a friend who is an electrical engineer
to test it out, he verified my claims w ith his calculations. It is 50 of the camera flash caps in parallel. To charge it we are using some rectifyer that uses 4 finder in a diamond
formation with a 100 w att lightbulb as resistive ballast. Apparently it can charge then in a second flat, powered by 1 amp mains current. So I will use a momentary switch to
charge, holding it down for a second.
I am building a spring loaded switch to trigger the Bastard soon. The coil has yet to be wound. I am planning to use an inverter as its power source.
waveguider October 16th, 2008, 02:53 AM

I saw an interesting show called Weapons Masters on discovery and they displayed the gyrojet. Unfortunately it isn't on youtube but there is a video by the History channel on
the gyrojet.
http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=HoffTmg9bxU&NR=1

The Explosives and Weapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > Active Denial System, A directed-energy weapon
Log in
View Full Version : Active Denial System, A directed-energy weapon

Discussion on Protection against directed energy weapons.
I tried searching for any other threads on protecting oneself from ADS but found none, I think it is only a matter of time until almost every government will have this system in
it's arsenal and may go as far as to track and torture individuals it believes to be a threat with it.
Imagine a person running for president that the existing government wants out of the race or wants to blackmail, Then imagine what they could do with this system and how
easily discredited the candidate or threat would be when he tries to expose the blackmail or torture?
I do not like to link to wikipedia but if you haven't heard of this system please take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Active_Denial_System
I originally started thinking about making my own Faraday cage incorporated into clothing to protect myself from the possibility of encountering ADS. Of course one could use
Aluminium space blankets stitched inside clothing but imagine how hot and uncomfortable that w ould get!
So the only practical alternative I could think of is Faraday caged clothing, however I came along a few snags that I would like some assistance with:
(1) I have read some articles stating that a faraday cage needs to be grounded to w ork effectively and others stating it is not needed, I would love some clarification on this,
like for example airplanes are not grounded when flying yet can survive lightning strikes but most microw aves have their front Faraday cage grounded and most FEMA buildings
have their cages grounded as well.
I have read, over time, charge will begin to accumulate on a unearthed Faraday cage and thus it will start to emit it's own EMF negating the whole purpose of having the cage,
I'm not sure if this is a major snag as it is unlikely one would be in direct line of the ADS for too long, how long w ould render the Faraday suit ineffective however is a major
unknown.
Most microwave ovens work at around 2.5GHz w hich corresponds to a w avelength of ~12cm lambda= c/f. Theoretically any Faraday cage with gaps less than this wavelength
will start to block the EM w aves, however as you can probably tell from looking at your microwave door the gaps are at the max ~1mm wide or approximately the wavelength/
100. Extrapolating this rule of thumb to a shield for the ADS means a gap of 3.16mm/100 or 31.6 microns/ 400 mesh.
I was successful in finding mesh that size but the preferred copper was too expensive so stainless steel is probably the best bet
http://ww w.twpinc.com/tw pinc/control/product/~ category_id=TWPCAT_12/~product_id=400X400S0010W48T
This is relatively expensive as the average skin surface area is 2m^2 or 22ft^ 2 and at ~$20 a square foot! even still successfully joining the strips together to ensure electrical
conductivity may prove extremely difficult.
Luckily I stumbled upon this site:

http://ww w.lessemf.com/personal.html
It sells clothing products that claims ''99% RF attenuation over the frequency range from 800 MHz to 18 GHz.
Unfortunately as mentioned above and in wiki the ADS system is said to emit microw aves at 95 GHz, The mesh sized is not disclosed on the EMF protection site but if I use the
lambda/100 rule rule for 18GHz then the mesh w ould be 166 microns or ~90 mesh and w earing two layers would hopefully equal tw ice that but that still only equals at the best
200 mesh and I think I need 400 mesh.
However 200 mesh may provide me w ith an ability to only feel a slight heating effect. It is still a large sum of money to spend on something that may not work. This option
would probably be cheaper and more reliable than making my own Faraday suit.
(2)so do you think wearing two layers of the clothing for sale in the link would provide adequate protection?
One major issue of contention is what about being in a lightning enviroment and wearing the suit.
(3)would I produce unwanted lightning streamers? and would the suit adequately protect me from strikes?
Joxer October 16th, 2008, 10:53 AM

like for example airplanes are not grounded when flying yet can survive lightning strikes
They survive the strike because they dont absorb it. The lightning will still travel to ground. Regarding your question #3, I don't see how anything like this will help you survive a
lightning strike.
This is an excellent and timely topic.
James October 16th, 2008, 04:43 PM

I vaugely recall posting something on the forum about a coat (for women) with conductive fibers woven into it. the Fibers IIRC w ere copper coated and manufacture by 3M. I'm
a bit fuzzy about it, as it has been a w hile.
Hinckleyforpresident October 16th, 2008, 05:17 PM

A Faraday cage must be grounded for it to work. Grounding a piece of clothing w ould probably be rather difficult to do...
AliasBlast October 17th, 2008, 12:07 AM

Interesting topic! From what I understand, a Faraday Cage does not have to be grounded to block and protect EM radiation, but they often are to prevent other problems when
shielding circuitry.
Protecting yourself from the ADS w ould require covering your entire body or at least the parts in the EM radiation path. I actually like your space blanket idea. Instead of
dressing yourself in expensive wire-mesh clothing, or a suit made of conductive plastic etc, you could just whip out the space blanket and w rap it around yourself (as your
running away). They're pretty small and easy to carry around. The problem with this is how long you actually have before the effects are completely felt.
"For the first millisecond, it just felt like the skin was warming up. Then it got warmer and w armer and you felt like it w as on fire"
Of course clothing would have the added benefit of protecting your RFID cards and electronics. Now you just have to find a way to field test your ideas :D
Alexires October 17th, 2008, 02:37 AM

You probably w ouldn't need to cover your whole body. You could always put the space blanket under your clothes at the front, leaving the back open to breathe. If you are
getting hit in the back you are and running aw ay, which means you'll get aw ay soon anyway, so no point in protecting it.
Hinckleyforpresident October 17th, 2008, 12:02 PM

Electricity follows the path of least resistance, so if you are grounded, and the cage isn't - "BZZZAP!". However, the cage (if grounded) will convert the EM blast into an electrical
surge, which can then be redirected.
Jacks Complete October 18th, 2008, 05:16 AM

Ok, covering yourself with foil will help not very much. The ADS uses a very directional beam which stimulates the nerves, so you feel like you are on fire. Ideal for harassment
and controlling the people without any nasty press footage. "We never even unslung our guns!"
Anyway, the beam will make it feel like your face is burning, and your hands, so covering half your body with foil or anything else w on't be much use. A large array of corner
cubes would be interesting, though, as a countermeasure, though you might want to ensure you are bulletproof as w ell. The waveguide is about 4 feet across, so w e can
assume that the beam is about the same width for a significant distance, so you are not going to be able to shield against this to any great effect.
If you want to try, you want lots of conductivity. You want a thick aluminium foil, or, better, a pure copper mesh. It doesn't really have to be earthed, the w avelengths we are
dealing with are in the range w here you get w hat is called "Skin effect" (ironic, huh?) where the electrons on or very near to the surface of the conductor do all the work. This
means that you can use a thin layer and get effective protection, as long as it is blocking line of sight.
Earthing isn't needed, as long before the voltage gets very high, it will earth through your legs anyw ay. The worst that w ould happen is that you would float up to a few tens of
thousands of volts, then discharge in an arc. This would be the same as a static shock. It would be funny if you w ired a taser unit to the system to ensure you couldn't be
grappled, but that's just a random thought.
Another random thought is that you could try the electrostatic bags made from conductive plastic, though I doubt they would be conductive enough.
iHME October 18th, 2008, 05:30 PM

It w ould be funny if you w ired a taser unit to the system to ensure you couldn't be grappled, but that's just a random thought.
That has already been done. There w as/is this jacket for women to prevent muggers/rapists. The jacket has a inbuilt stungun and the outerlayer of the jacket has conductors on
it.
Imagine using that in a crowded concert/bus/metro/anything, interesting things could ensue :)

From http://w ww.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-1/711apxlf.htm
Effective defense against microwave radiation emitters entails using the follow ing techniques:
Disconnect all electronic equipment when not in use.

Shield smaller electronic items by placing them in empty ammunition cans.
Employ terrain masking, which provides some protection against microwave radiation.
Limit the time personnel are exposed to microwave emissions.
From http://w ww.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/12/72134?currentPage=2
The beam penetrates clothing, but not stone or metal. Blocking it is harder than you might think. Wearing a tinfoil shirt is not enough -- you would have to be w rapped like a
turkey to be completely protected. The experimenters found that even a small exposed area was enough to produce the Goodbye effect, so any gaps w ould negate protection.
Holding up a sheet of metal w on't work either, unless it covers your whole body and you can keep the tips of your fingers out of sight.
Wet clothing might sound like a good defense, but tests show ed that contact with damp cloth actually intensified the effects of the beam.
System 1, the operational prototype, is mounted on a Hummer and produces a beam with a 2-meter diameter. Effective range is at least 500 meters
It looks like the only practical defense is to stay off the street, and/or destroy the vehicle or antenna.
waveguider October 22nd, 2008, 01:45 PM

I wonder if Polycarbonate is opaque to microw aves at 95 GHz, if not I suppose the only cheap riot solution to this threat is 1mm thick Al sheeting or indeed many layers of space
blankets as kitchen foil rips easily. If one needs bullet protection a polycarbonate backing like common riot shields would be useful, a combination of the two shields above
should provide a bit of microw ave and water cannon reflection etc.
Is anyone else eagerly awaiting a commercial meta-material cloak?
Just another side idea, are there smoke screens capable of attenuating microwaves? akin to the common Teflon+ KNO3+ sugar Infrared and visible spectrum screens, maybe the
above composition would be adequate for microwaves too?
Although the anti riot forces are most likely going to try and flank rioters w ith a combination of getting the rioters wet and then cooking them with the ADS. A tight Roman
testudo formation of the modified riot shields mentioned above would prove to be effective and may afford the users of the shields the ability to advance. I think Jack's
Complete was hinting on an excellent idea superior to the minimum reflection Al sheeting would provide.
A large array of corner cubes
Although I presume these corner cubes are made from glass, and glass may be opaque to microwaves although this could be useful for the smoke screen application mentioned
above, micro fine glass or sand for sandblasting dispersed by a small explosive charge may provide a microw ave smoke screen not to mention a threat of lung damage from
silicosis, testing is needed.
Plastic corner cubes do exist apparently and they are inexpensive too:
http://ww w.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/displayproduct.cfm?productID= 2088
A Functioning Al sheet and polycarbonate riot shield combination with a few added corner cubes could provide not only a case of the operators having a taste of their own
medicine, but operators of the system would most likely not be prepared for it, leading to the rioters potentially able to capture the ADS, though when are rioters ever this
organized? However I have to say, this was not my intended use of the shielding, I am interested in personal safety not safety while being a public nuisance, if you ask me
most rioters are usually asking for it, but of late, I have had to revise this assumption.
Joxer mentioned Wet clothing might sound like a good defense, but tests showed that contact with damp cloth actually intensified the effects of the beam
I cannot understand how the w ater intensified the skin heating effects. I suspect what is really occurring in these tests is the water is opaque and is thus being heated much
faster than the skin and contact with the hot w ater may have scalded the target, An outer garment of cotton for example w ith an inner nylon rain jacket could negate the
operators attempts at soaking the target and then heating them though I'm skeptical of this tactic.
If I am right and this is the case, the w ater is opaque to the microwave beam, then I am positive that the KNO3 + sugar comp smoke screen would provide protection against
ADS and a high humidity environments w ould further attenuate the beam.
Also from the wired article Joxer linked to is this gem Sandia National Labs is looking at a small tripod-mounted version for defending nuclear installations, and there is even a
portable ADS. And there are bigger versions too...an ADS far more powerful than System 1 has been developed. But details of the exact power levels, range and diameter of the
beam are classified.
Am I the only one disturbed by the thought of our sociopathic narcissistic leaders getting a hold of this potentially airborne system 2?
iHME October 22nd, 2008, 05:34 PM

I certainly am. When I first read about these "guardian angel" systems, I was terrified.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to imagine the potential as a torture device, how you gona prove that you got zapped?
You cant look for burned out receptors, at least not easily.
Though it might burn/damage the outer layer of the skin due to the skin effect.
That could make it detectable.
A "counter attack" could be using a pharmaceutic compound that blocks the brains from receiving the burning sensation/pain.
Enjoy you burning sensation at protests. :)
3287 October 22nd, 2008, 07:39 PM

It's a big-ass truck with an effective range of 550m.
So shoot it from 600m.
iHME October 23rd, 2008, 08:29 AM

Shoot the military/police at a protest? Do you want to start a blood bath?
They'd probably open fire at you. IIRC only the military has those microw ave systems.
But a interesting idea would be reflecting it BACK at them, thus forcing them to shut it down. That w ould of cource lead to the development of counter measures from the
military/police to shield their troops. Countermeasures that YOU might be able to copy.
A interesting idea w ould also be "reverse engineering" the weapon and deploying your own. But that would mean dragging a 20 000+ eur frequency analyzer to the zone and
identifying the used frequencies. Then one would just have to build a device transmitting sinewave at the desired frequency.
The bad thing is that the system might be working on the millimeter waves (eg. teraherz). Though w aveguider mentioned it being 95Ghz, I'm not sure if that is the correct
frequency.
3287 October 23rd, 2008, 09:50 AM

It is documented as being 95 GHz, but that doesn't mean we're being fed accurate information.
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/Active_Denial_System
Citation 5, apparently it's from Popular Mechanics.
Hirudinea October 23rd, 2008, 07:04 PM

I certainly am. When I first read about these "guardian angel" systems, I was terrified.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to imagine the potential as a torture device, how you gona prove that you got zapped?
It w ould be a wonderful torture device, burning w ithout leaving any marks, sounds ideal.
You cant look for burned out receptors, at least not easily.
Tough it might burn/damage the outer layer of the skin due to the skin effect.
That could make it detectable.
Mabye it could cause some skin effects, but I think it would be similar to a sunburn, w hich w ould probably clear up after a couple weeks, very easy to hold someone until the
evidence of torture is gone.
A "counter attack" could be using a pharmaceutic compound that blocks the brains from receiving the burning sensation/pain.
Enjoy you burning sensation at protests. :)
Get wacked out on any good quality opiate and you'll be walking up to the transmitter asking them to roast your weenies. ;)
Alexires October 24th, 2008, 02:55 AM

Or weiner....
It's a big-ass truck with an effective range of 550m.

Effective range is AT LEAST 500M
A lot of difference betw een 500m and at least 500m.
Perhaps w ould use some other kind of EM generator to "cancel" out the signal or augment it so that it doesn't burn you.

But a interesting idea would be reflecting it BACK at them, thus forcing them to shut it down. That w ould of cource lead to the development of counter measures from the
military/police to shield their troops. Countermeasures that YOU might be able to copy.
I like your idea.
If the beam is that tightly focused, perhaps a parabolic reflector could be used to reflect it right back at them?
I use something similar for wifi connections, when the signal is w eak. It's made out of a cheap heat lamp used on farms, and cost me all of $10. While not truely parabolic, it's
close enough.

I've found a video of a reporter using plyw ood and then a mattress shield to help with protecting himself against the effects of the ADS, the plywood seems effective.
http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=J1w4g2vr7B4&feature=related
Once I watched the video I thought of thick leather shoes coupled with leather gloves and the use of the plywood shield would potentially provide the reporter with adequate
protection. Then I thought of the potential of Samurai leather armor. My reasoning behind this is that leather is made out of skin and so it sacrifices itself for your skin, I'm not
sure, it might provide adequate protection.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science > Weapon Science and Technology > New Israeli weapon kicks up
stink
Log in
View Full Version : New Israeli weapon kicks up stink
phrankinsteyn Novem ber 7th, 2008, 02:23 PM

An interesting article on Israeli's new "com pletely organic" weapon.
It's called Sk unk. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/m iddle_ea st/7646894.stm
:)
Alexires Novem ber 8th, 2008, 04:59 AM

Tim e for us to start breaking out the yeast, baking soda and trying to find those "secret" ingredients....
Killy Novem ber 10th, 2008, 06:31 PM

Looks to me like good old m edia hoax.
festergrump Novem ber 10th, 2008, 06:40 PM

Fecal matter, urine, a nd eggs baked by the sun a few days in a jam jar always wo rked wonders for us devia nt children back in
the day. O n e j a r s p l a t t e d a g a i n s t t h e s i d e o f s o m e o n e ' s h o u s e w a s e n o u gh for th e m n o t t o m ow that side of the lawn for about
a week.
Hinckleyforpresident Novem ber 10th, 2008, 08:14 PM

I would imag ine that a skatole (3-m ethylindole ) in DMSO aerosol would be a pretty effective less-than-lethal weapon. Perhaps
it could be spiced up with a sp lash of hydrogen sulfide, but one would have to be careful not to hit the lethal dose.
I find the duration that the sm ell sticks with you to be the most interesting part. Making people vom it and cry from a s m e l l
isn't too hard, but m aking tha t smell stick for 3 days se e m s l i k e it would be pretty difficult.
c.Tech Novem ber 11th, 2008, 05:59 AM

http://en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/Skatole
S k a t o l e h a s b e e n s h o w n t o c a u s e p u l m o n a r y e d e m a i n g o a t s , s h e e p , r a t s , a n d s o m e strains of m ice.
Probably not the best option unless yo u don't mind that harm it may cau s e .
Finding som ething which is know for it's stink, extracting the fragrance and dispersing it in a solution may be an option. Cat
urine/mould/rotten eggs/rotting flesh/rotting anything.
I rem ember hearing about a fragrance which is used to attract dingos. Maybe it's used universally for wild p redators.
I t h a d a f o u l s m e l l a n d c a u s e d g a g g i n g e t c . W as very hard to get rid of (could sm ell it on your hands up to 3 days after
handling)
Has anyone heard of this substance?
Jacks Complete Novem ber 16th, 2008, 08:04 AM

So if the C hinese (the real power in this world now) get pissed off with the Israelis and Ara bs bickering, they can just airspray
the place with it, and then whoever still wants it can have it - as long as they stay there!
Killy Novem ber 16th, 2008, 10:04 AM

C h i n e s e h a v e e n o u g h p r o b l e m s with their billion people population, they don't ha ve to act like som e im perial power, and
probably won't.
megalomania Novem ber 24th, 2008, 07:40 PM

I d o n t r e m e m ber if it was posted here a few years ago, or I just read it somewhe re, but the US m ilitary sta rted a project to
d e v e l o p t h e s m elliest stench for a less-than-lethal weapon and crowd control. I cant seem to find the website and articles
a n y m ore.
The smell they are going after is a cross between vomit, rot, and feces, the three m o s t o f f e n s i v e o d o r s t o p e o p l e ( p u t r e c e n e ,
c a d a v a r e n e , s k a t o l e ) . I r e m eber reading the university lab spilled one drop in a fum e h o o d a n d t h e stench filled up the entire
building for a few days afterwards.
I have been sitting back and waiting for the synthesis to be published in a journal or patent. The US m ilitary is going for the
p s y c h o l o g i c a l a n g l e d e v e l o p i n g t h e s m elliest possible substance completely unbearable by every h u m a n b e i n g a l i v e . R e a d t h a t
as trained soldiers, terrorists, and the biggest, meanest badasses on the block.
W e already have the sm elliest substance possible, they just needs to swab the crevices of dirty hippies.
FUTI Novem ber 25th, 2008, 04:53 PM

The smell they are going after is a cross between vomit, rot, and feces, the three m o s t o f f e n s i v e o d o r s t o p e o p l e ( p u t r e c e n e ,
c a d a v a r e n e , s k a t o l e ) . I r e m eber reading the university lab spilled one drop in a fum e h o o d a n d t h e stench filled up the entire
building for a few days afterwards.
Thio acetone is first that comes to my m ind... but there is so many thiols and am ines eager to show their m ight :-).
slarter Novem ber 26th, 2008, 07:51 PM

I d o n t rem e m ber if it was p o s t e d h e r e a f e w y e a r s a g o , o r I just read it som ewhere, b u t the US m ilitary started a proje ct to
d e v e l o p t h e s m elliest stench f o r a l e s s - t h a n - l e thal weapon and crowd co ntrol. I c a n t s e e m to find the website an d articles
a n y m ore.
I rem e m b e r r e a d i n g a b o u t s o m ething similar that they called 'Vile-X' IIRC . They placed a couple o f drops on the roots of a
fruit tree and all of th e fruit borne by that tree was inedible due to the vile sm ell and taste produced by the chemical.
Supposedly it was detectable to the hu m a n n o s e a t t h e P P T l e v e l . : e e k :
Or d o like Green Peace and toss gallon jugs of Methyl Mercaptan.
Alexires Novem ber 27th, 2008, 03:16 AM

M e g a - I h a d a b i t o f a l o o k a r o u n d . S e e m s that it is still under wraps, but the things touted to be absolute ly vile (h e n c e u s e f u l
to us) are "W h o M e ? " d e v e l o p ed in W WII, "Bathroom M a l o d o r " ( d e v e l o p e d b y t h e U S Government for "testing clean ing
products") and som ething called "Stench Soup".
Here (http://www.pubm edcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1259269&blobtype=pdf) is a link to a synthesis of Putrescine.
I c a n n o t s e e m to find a synth for the "Bathroom Malodor" or for the "Stench Soup" but I h ave found this patent (http://
www.freepate ntsonline.com / 4 0 0 9 2 5 3 . h t m l) about defeating malodorants, in which they m a k e u p " B a t h r o o m Malodor" but I
don't know if it is the same one.
Various Malodor syntheses can be found here (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7157411/description.htm l)
This pdf (http://www.dtic.m il/n dia/nld4/bickford.pdf) contains som e tests regardin g M a l o d o r s a n d t h e i r e f f e c t s / r a n k i n g a m o n g

various cultures.

Weapon Science and Technology PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Weapon Science and Technology PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This is not registered version of Total HTML Converter

The Explosives and W eapons Forum > Military Science

vBulletin v3.7.2, Copyright 2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

1. New Israeli weapon kicks up stink (11 replies)

vBulletin v3.7.2, Copyright 2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

The Explosives and W eapons Forum

User Nam e: Password:

vBulletin v3.7.2, Copyright 2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

zaibatsu March 6th, 2003, 03:07 PM

These suckers use quartz I believe.

[ T h i s m e s s a g e h a s b e e n e d i t e d b y n b k 2 0 0 0 ( e dited February 19, 2001).]

Yafmot May 21st, 20 08, 06:2 9 AM

vBulletin v3.7.2, Copyright 2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

smokey March 8th, 2003, 05:38 PM

I_am_the_Black_one March 13th, 2003, 03:20 AM

Gargoylebrother April 8th, 2003, 06:59 AM

Anthony April 8th, 2003, 04:15 PM

C o m m o n p i e zo ignito rs will no t ignite BP etc

I_am_the_Black_one April 29th, 2003, 04:58 AM

Anthony April 29th, 2003, 03:37 PM

xyz April 30th, 2003, 10:17 PM

vBulletin v3.7.2, Copyright 2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Polverone August 9th, 2002, 04:23 AM

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial,

nbk2000 August 9th, 2002, 05:55 AM

The closest I could find to relevant info was here:

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=light+emit+xenon+compression&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1" target="_blank">http:/

Mr Cool August 9th, 2002, 08:56 AM

PrimoPyro August 9th, 2002, 02:01 PM

What I mean is you could either

PYRO500 August 9th, 2002, 03:16 PM

Mr Cool August 9th, 2002, 03:54 PM

Polverone August 9th, 2002, 04:19 PM

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial,

PYRO500 August 9th, 2002, 06:22 PM

xoo1246 August 9th, 2002, 06:29 PM

nbk2000 August 9th, 2002, 07:07 PM

kingspaz August 9th, 2002, 07:35 PM

xoo1246 August 10th, 2002, 08:22 AM

Anthony August 10th, 2002, 02:49 PM

xoo1246 August 10th, 2002, 04:52 PM

nbk2000 August 10th, 2002, 05:26 PM

Mr Cool August 10th, 2002, 07:17 PM

kingspaz August 10th, 2002, 07:46 PM

xoo1246 August 11th, 2002, 07:45 AM

nbk2000 August 11th, 2002, 10:27 AM

Anthony August 11th, 2002, 11:39 AM

nbk2000 August 11th, 2002, 12:03 PM

xoo1246 August 12th, 2002, 03:19 PM

nbk2000 August 12th, 2002, 11:34 PM

nbk2000 August 13th, 2002, 10:47 AM

<img src="http://server3001.freeyellow.com/nbk2000/xenon2.jpg" alt=" - " />

xoo1246 August 13th, 2002, 01:04 PM

nbk2000 August 13th, 2002, 02:26 PM

Though it might be useful as an anti-electronics explosive. (?)

zaibatsu August 13th, 2002, 02:37 PM

xoo1246 August 13th, 2002, 05:28 PM

Mr Cool August 13th, 2002, 06:22 PM

xoo1246 August 13th, 2002, 08:50 PM

nbk2000 August 13th, 2002, 11:15 PM

xoo1246 August 14th, 2002, 06:50 AM

Mr Cool August 14th, 2002, 06:53 AM

xoo1246 August 14th, 2002, 07:21 AM