It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Clean Super Bombs, here we come!!!
This also might revolutionize firearm cardridges!! yikes, scary stuff...
Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Slower? I heard it was going faster I thought they would have practicle nano-tech by 2015....
Originally posted by BeefotronX
I'm thinking that while this development will lead to nuclear-esque weapons, a more practical usage would be to just pack the destructive power of today's conventional bombs into smaller packages. Like a MOAB that weighs only 200 pounds instead of 20000 pounds.
Originally posted by Countermeasures
Already the increasing knowledge of nanoenergetics and fine particles has led to Solid Fuel Air Explosives
The Air Force has been experimenting with a "solid FAE (SFAE)" filling that apparently disperses a fine cloud of aluminum particles, while the Navy has been working on an "interhalogen oxidizer" filling, possibly based on fluorine. Initial tests of the BLU-118/B were conducted in mid-December 2001, and by late winter 2002 the weapon was in use in Afghanistan, performing attacks on tunnels occupied by Taliban and Al-Qaida forces.
www.vectorsite.net...
Based on the SFAE idea I would like to propose the concept of a Hollow Shaped Charge using halogen oxydizer.
Since WW2 the Hollow Shaped Charge grenade uses the Monro effect to generate a concentrated high temprature, high kinetic metallic plasmajet .
Now, what if we were to replace the single metal liner with two different liners, made from substances that react very violenty witch eachother ?
Let's assume the reaction of Fluorine and Boron, this is about as violent as you can get with non-nuclear chemistry. Exactly why you don't see them in convential explosives, too dangerous , the two react prematurely upon the slightest contact without any external ignition.
In my hollow charge concept, there would be no need for interhalogens as the boron and fluorine are simply physically spaced appart and smashed against one another.
One halve of the hollow charge would be made of fluorine, the other of boron, when both collide in the middle that would not only form a plasma jet, but this plasma jet would be perhaps much denser, because fluorine is the most electronegative element known and boron much more positve. This would perhaps aid in preventing the plasmajet from getting warped by countermeasures and higher plasmadensity would aid in penetration depth.
throw some deuterium into the mix and one could even get a very small amount of thermonuclear reactions started, wich yield perhaps could be impproved by nano-engineering, using molecular vapour deposition to create a liner sandwich of alternating layers of boron and fluorine, all a few atoms thick, to maximize combustable surface area and seperated by deuterium "interhalogen" layers.
Originally posted by rogue1
Originally posted by Countermeasures
Already the increasing knowledge of nanoenergetics and fine particles has led to Solid Fuel Air Explosives
The Air Force has been experimenting with a "solid FAE (SFAE)" filling that apparently disperses a fine cloud of aluminum particles, while the Navy has been working on an "interhalogen oxidizer" filling, possibly based on fluorine. Initial tests of the BLU-118/B were conducted in mid-December 2001, and by late winter 2002 the weapon was in use in Afghanistan, performing attacks on tunnels occupied by Taliban and Al-Qaida forces.
www.vectorsite.net...
This doesn't seem to be a true FAE as they use ( as the name implies ) air as the oxidizer. The oxidizer isn't contained within the actual bomb as it seems to in the BLU-118/B.
Based on the SFAE idea I would like to propose the concept of a Hollow Shaped Charge using halogen oxydizer.
Since WW2 the Hollow Shaped Charge grenade uses the Monro effect to generate a concentrated high temprature, high kinetic metallic plasmajet .
Now, what if we were to replace the single metal liner with two different liners, made from substances that react very violenty witch eachother ?
Let's assume the reaction of Fluorine and Boron, this is about as violent as you can get with non-nuclear chemistry. Exactly why you don't see them in convential explosives, too dangerous , the two react prematurely upon the slightest contact without any external ignition.
In my hollow charge concept, there would be no need for interhalogens as the boron and fluorine are simply physically spaced appart and smashed against one another.
One halve of the hollow charge would be made of fluorine, the other of boron, when both collide in the middle that would not only form a plasma jet, but this plasma jet would be perhaps much denser, because fluorine is the most electronegative element known and boron much more positve. This would perhaps aid in preventing the plasmajet from getting warped by countermeasures and higher plasmadensity would aid in penetration depth.
Wouldn't this disrupt the coherenece of the jet as the 2 elements wouldn't have the same detonation velocities. Most hollow charge research concentrates on refinging the coherence of the jet. Tantalum liners seem to be the element of choice for new warheads.
Whilst I am not a physicist, but the reaction between fluorine and boron would be too unpredictable for an explosive.
throw some deuterium into the mix and one could even get a very small amount of thermonuclear reactions started, wich yield perhaps could be impproved by nano-engineering, using molecular vapour deposition to create a liner sandwich of alternating layers of boron and fluorine, all a few atoms thick, to maximize combustable surface area and seperated by deuterium "interhalogen" layers.
Conventional explosives don't produce a fraction of the heat and pressure to be able to fuse helium. Therefore any nuclear reaction using deuterium couldn't happen using any non nuclear explosive.
PS. Do you have any information on the energy released by a fluorine/boron reaction. I'd be very intersted, thanks.
Originally posted by razorsdescent
The idea that you want to create cleaner weapons is interesting, some people would like the opposite. the radiation from a nuke can serve as a long time reminder of the past and it may even prevent future mistakes.
[edit on 4-2-2005 by razorsdescent]