Mixing
Could a super high pressure canister act as a bomb?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Imagine a metal canister capable of holding massive amounts of air or some other compressible substance. If it were filled with enormous amounts of said fluid and dropped from a plane, how destructive would it be? I am aware of "lazy dog" weapons that were destructive just because of the weight (and this would be a very heavy canister), but I was thinking the force of the air rushing out of it would be powerful. I can think of three possibilities:
The canister would have to be so strong to resist the pressure that a drop from a plane wouldn't break it
The "explosion" would be loud, but do nothing but scatter dust and shrapnel
A deadly and powerful explosion would ensue as the pressurized air rushed out and created a deadly shockwave of energy
I have tried to research it on Google, but the only results I can find are deaths by exploding whipped cream canisters. And they say sugar won't kill you.
explosions
asked 1 hour ago
Redwolf Programs
502414
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Imagine a metal canister capable of holding massive amounts of air or some other compressible substance. If it were filled with enormous amounts of said fluid and dropped from a plane, how destructive would it be? I am aware of "lazy dog" weapons that were destructive just because of the weight (and this would be a very heavy canister), but I was thinking the force of the air rushing out of it would be powerful. I can think of three possibilities:
The canister would have to be so strong to resist the pressure that a drop from a plane wouldn't break it
The "explosion" would be loud, but do nothing but scatter dust and shrapnel
A deadly and powerful explosion would ensue as the pressurized air rushed out and created a deadly shockwave of energy
I have tried to research it on Google, but the only results I can find are deaths by exploding whipped cream canisters. And they say sugar won't kill you.
explosions
asked 1 hour ago
Redwolf Programs
502414
"nothing but scatter dust and shrapnel" - this sounds like an effective anti-personnel weapon. I assume you want to handwave reasons for such weapon? Because conventional explosives are simply cheaper.
– Mołot
59 mins ago
Someone with a physics background might know the exact definitions, but I don't think there's any meaningful difference between 'explosion' and 'high pressure canister being opened'. Both just cause a rapid and destructive expansion of stuff, except one may have more fire than the other. You should probably add some concrete numbers and info on exactly what this bomb is made of: what's in it, how much pressure it has, etc.
– Giter
59 mins ago
@Giter The difference lies in the rate of gas expansion, much slower with a breached pressure vessel than a high explosive where the reaction exceeds the speed of sound.
– Ash
27 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Imagine a metal canister capable of holding massive amounts of air or some other compressible substance. If it were filled with enormous amounts of said fluid and dropped from a plane, how destructive would it be? I am aware of "lazy dog" weapons that were destructive just because of the weight (and this would be a very heavy canister), but I was thinking the force of the air rushing out of it would be powerful. I can think of three possibilities:
The canister would have to be so strong to resist the pressure that a drop from a plane wouldn't break it
The "explosion" would be loud, but do nothing but scatter dust and shrapnel
A deadly and powerful explosion would ensue as the pressurized air rushed out and created a deadly shockwave of energy
I have tried to research it on Google, but the only results I can find are deaths by exploding whipped cream canisters. And they say sugar won't kill you.
explosions
asked 1 hour ago
Redwolf Programs
502414
Imagine a metal canister capable of holding massive amounts of air or some other compressible substance. If it were filled with enormous amounts of said fluid and dropped from a plane, how destructive would it be? I am aware of "lazy dog" weapons that were destructive just because of the weight (and this would be a very heavy canister), but I was thinking the force of the air rushing out of it would be powerful. I can think of three possibilities:
The canister would have to be so strong to resist the pressure that a drop from a plane wouldn't break it
The "explosion" would be loud, but do nothing but scatter dust and shrapnel
A deadly and powerful explosion would ensue as the pressurized air rushed out and created a deadly shockwave of energy
I have tried to research it on Google, but the only results I can find are deaths by exploding whipped cream canisters. And they say sugar won't kill you.
explosions
explosions
asked 1 hour ago
Redwolf Programs
502414
asked 1 hour ago
Redwolf Programs
502414
asked 1 hour ago
Redwolf Programs
502414
asked 1 hour ago
Redwolf Programs
502414
asked 1 hour ago
Redwolf Programs
502414
502414
"nothing but scatter dust and shrapnel" - this sounds like an effective anti-personnel weapon. I assume you want to handwave reasons for such weapon? Because conventional explosives are simply cheaper.
– Mołot
59 mins ago
Someone with a physics background might know the exact definitions, but I don't think there's any meaningful difference between 'explosion' and 'high pressure canister being opened'. Both just cause a rapid and destructive expansion of stuff, except one may have more fire than the other. You should probably add some concrete numbers and info on exactly what this bomb is made of: what's in it, how much pressure it has, etc.
– Giter
59 mins ago
@Giter The difference lies in the rate of gas expansion, much slower with a breached pressure vessel than a high explosive where the reaction exceeds the speed of sound.
– Ash
27 mins ago
add a comment |Â
"nothing but scatter dust and shrapnel" - this sounds like an effective anti-personnel weapon. I assume you want to handwave reasons for such weapon? Because conventional explosives are simply cheaper.
– Mołot
59 mins ago
Someone with a physics background might know the exact definitions, but I don't think there's any meaningful difference between 'explosion' and 'high pressure canister being opened'. Both just cause a rapid and destructive expansion of stuff, except one may have more fire than the other. You should probably add some concrete numbers and info on exactly what this bomb is made of: what's in it, how much pressure it has, etc.
– Giter
59 mins ago
@Giter The difference lies in the rate of gas expansion, much slower with a breached pressure vessel than a high explosive where the reaction exceeds the speed of sound.
– Ash
27 mins ago
"nothing but scatter dust and shrapnel" - this sounds like an effective anti-personnel weapon. I assume you want to handwave reasons for such weapon? Because conventional explosives are simply cheaper.
– Mołot
59 mins ago
"nothing but scatter dust and shrapnel" - this sounds like an effective anti-personnel weapon. I assume you want to handwave reasons for such weapon? Because conventional explosives are simply cheaper.
– Mołot
59 mins ago
Someone with a physics background might know the exact definitions, but I don't think there's any meaningful difference between 'explosion' and 'high pressure canister being opened'. Both just cause a rapid and destructive expansion of stuff, except one may have more fire than the other. You should probably add some concrete numbers and info on exactly what this bomb is made of: what's in it, how much pressure it has, etc.
– Giter
59 mins ago
Someone with a physics background might know the exact definitions, but I don't think there's any meaningful difference between 'explosion' and 'high pressure canister being opened'. Both just cause a rapid and destructive expansion of stuff, except one may have more fire than the other. You should probably add some concrete numbers and info on exactly what this bomb is made of: what's in it, how much pressure it has, etc.
– Giter
59 mins ago
@Giter The difference lies in the rate of gas expansion, much slower with a breached pressure vessel than a high explosive where the reaction exceeds the speed of sound.
– Ash
27 mins ago
@Giter The difference lies in the rate of gas expansion, much slower with a breached pressure vessel than a high explosive where the reaction exceeds the speed of sound.
– Ash
27 mins ago
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
You can use the following rough approximation to estimate the amount of energy stored in a pressurized gas:
$E_stored = P cdot V$
That is the amount of energy that you can release upon freeing up that gas.
So, let's say you want the same energy release of 1 kg of TNT, which would occupy about half a liter volume. That would account for $E = 4.18 cdot 10^6 J = P cdot V$.
With 10 cubic meters (10000 liters) stored at a pressure of 418000 kPa (about 4 atm) you could release the same energy.
Using a "more practical" 0.1 cubic meter (100 liters) would require a pressure of about 400 atm.
You see it's not the most efficient way of delivering damage.
answered 48 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
65.7k20156309
1
For comparison purposes, 1kg of TNT itself only takes up about 0.06 cubic meters.
– Cadence
45 mins ago
Also TNT releases it's energy in a fraction of a second, a pressure vessel won't dump that quickly unless something really strange is going on, normally it will breach and the gas will rush out over a couple of seconds to a few minutes depending on the size of the hole.
– Ash
7 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Gas rushing out of a ruptured pressure vessel has no Brisance so the vessel doesn't tend to break up into many pieces but rather develop only a single breach from which all the gas escapes. This causes reactive motion as the force of the gas escaping pushes the breached vessel away, like blowing up a balloon and then letting it go and it shoots across the room, but with steel instead of rubber. It's dangerous, flying steel is never anything else, but it won't cause a shockwave because it will be a, relatively, slow release, nor would one expect much shrapnel.
answered 43 mins ago
Ash
22.7k462135
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I've never seen sugar do that
There are a few reports of non-flammable gases expanding (not exploding) in such situations and places that they can kill.
For example in late 70's in Poland storage of non-flammable helium had an explosion while filling typical container (the ones used to fill balloons) which created chain reaction that resulted in 5 deaths.
Remember that what the gas is doing is rising the pressure. If there is a space for that pressure to run out there will be no shockwave (or it will be very short in range). But if he place is small the pressure can be lethal. Like my nephew who punctured rather large helium balloon in home which resulted in destruction of all windows.
The main thing is that such bomb would be far less usable than real bomb. That can be made from a gas canister you attach to your grill. Because here you not only have expanding gas. You have expanding flammable gas. So pressure + flammable + taking out oxygen. And it's cheap and easy to use.
answered 51 mins ago
SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
14.1k22142
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
On Mythbusters, they tested this idea in a mock up of the final scene of the movie Jaws (the heroes shoot a gas canister with a rifle, and it blows up, killing the shark and sparing them). While the canister did not "explode" the resulting release of gas was powerful enough that it turned the canister into a rocket, and the shark stand-in used to test for damage was sufficiently ripped to shreds to call the shark killed.
Per their policy of "test the conditions, duplicate the results", they were able to duplicate the exploding canister using... C4. What else? The final verdict was "Busted" as the myth was specifically testing the explosive capability of the canister when shot by a gun, not its use in lieu of Bat-Shark Repellent.
Note that this myth was retested and reconfirmed as busted, but I don't have the details on the changes to the experiment.
edited 14 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
answered 33 mins ago
hszmv
3,799313
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In the world of Hazmat and fire fighting, there is a commonly-known acronym which is related to your question: B.L.E.V.E.: Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion - although most commonly planned for with flammable vapours such as petroleum distillates, it can absolutely occur with non-flammable gases such as Nitrogen.
Wikipedia BLEVE entry
I worked for some time as a tech writer for a company which had a large number of gas storage and flowing systems for a range of gases used in their industrial processes: Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen; I was also a Hazmat FRO, and part of their in-house Disaster Response Team - and I cna tell you we very creafully briefed the local fire fighters about our facility and the specifics of our gas system, its shutoffs and controls, kill-points, and potentials for BLEVE and other similar pressure risks.
You don't need a super-high pressure canister - you need a canister with a mix of fluid and flammable vapour, and a heat source directly impinging on the canister's outer skin...
answered 14 mins ago
GerardFalla
2,439316
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
You can use the following rough approximation to estimate the amount of energy stored in a pressurized gas:
$E_stored = P cdot V$
That is the amount of energy that you can release upon freeing up that gas.
So, let's say you want the same energy release of 1 kg of TNT, which would occupy about half a liter volume. That would account for $E = 4.18 cdot 10^6 J = P cdot V$.
With 10 cubic meters (10000 liters) stored at a pressure of 418000 kPa (about 4 atm) you could release the same energy.
Using a "more practical" 0.1 cubic meter (100 liters) would require a pressure of about 400 atm.
You see it's not the most efficient way of delivering damage.
answered 48 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
65.7k20156309
1
For comparison purposes, 1kg of TNT itself only takes up about 0.06 cubic meters.
– Cadence
45 mins ago
Also TNT releases it's energy in a fraction of a second, a pressure vessel won't dump that quickly unless something really strange is going on, normally it will breach and the gas will rush out over a couple of seconds to a few minutes depending on the size of the hole.
– Ash
7 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
You can use the following rough approximation to estimate the amount of energy stored in a pressurized gas:
$E_stored = P cdot V$
That is the amount of energy that you can release upon freeing up that gas.
So, let's say you want the same energy release of 1 kg of TNT, which would occupy about half a liter volume. That would account for $E = 4.18 cdot 10^6 J = P cdot V$.
With 10 cubic meters (10000 liters) stored at a pressure of 418000 kPa (about 4 atm) you could release the same energy.
Using a "more practical" 0.1 cubic meter (100 liters) would require a pressure of about 400 atm.
You see it's not the most efficient way of delivering damage.
answered 48 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
65.7k20156309
1
For comparison purposes, 1kg of TNT itself only takes up about 0.06 cubic meters.
– Cadence
45 mins ago
Also TNT releases it's energy in a fraction of a second, a pressure vessel won't dump that quickly unless something really strange is going on, normally it will breach and the gas will rush out over a couple of seconds to a few minutes depending on the size of the hole.
– Ash
7 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
You can use the following rough approximation to estimate the amount of energy stored in a pressurized gas:
$E_stored = P cdot V$
That is the amount of energy that you can release upon freeing up that gas.
So, let's say you want the same energy release of 1 kg of TNT, which would occupy about half a liter volume. That would account for $E = 4.18 cdot 10^6 J = P cdot V$.
With 10 cubic meters (10000 liters) stored at a pressure of 418000 kPa (about 4 atm) you could release the same energy.
Using a "more practical" 0.1 cubic meter (100 liters) would require a pressure of about 400 atm.
You see it's not the most efficient way of delivering damage.
answered 48 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
65.7k20156309
You can use the following rough approximation to estimate the amount of energy stored in a pressurized gas:
$E_stored = P cdot V$
That is the amount of energy that you can release upon freeing up that gas.
So, let's say you want the same energy release of 1 kg of TNT, which would occupy about half a liter volume. That would account for $E = 4.18 cdot 10^6 J = P cdot V$.
With 10 cubic meters (10000 liters) stored at a pressure of 418000 kPa (about 4 atm) you could release the same energy.
Using a "more practical" 0.1 cubic meter (100 liters) would require a pressure of about 400 atm.
You see it's not the most efficient way of delivering damage.
answered 48 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
65.7k20156309
edited 44 mins ago
answered 48 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
65.7k20156309
answered 48 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
65.7k20156309
answered 48 mins ago
L.Dutch♦
65.7k20156309
65.7k20156309
1
For comparison purposes, 1kg of TNT itself only takes up about 0.06 cubic meters.
– Cadence
45 mins ago
Also TNT releases it's energy in a fraction of a second, a pressure vessel won't dump that quickly unless something really strange is going on, normally it will breach and the gas will rush out over a couple of seconds to a few minutes depending on the size of the hole.
– Ash
7 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
For comparison purposes, 1kg of TNT itself only takes up about 0.06 cubic meters.
– Cadence
45 mins ago
Also TNT releases it's energy in a fraction of a second, a pressure vessel won't dump that quickly unless something really strange is going on, normally it will breach and the gas will rush out over a couple of seconds to a few minutes depending on the size of the hole.
– Ash
7 mins ago
1
1
For comparison purposes, 1kg of TNT itself only takes up about 0.06 cubic meters.
– Cadence
45 mins ago
For comparison purposes, 1kg of TNT itself only takes up about 0.06 cubic meters.
– Cadence
45 mins ago
Also TNT releases it's energy in a fraction of a second, a pressure vessel won't dump that quickly unless something really strange is going on, normally it will breach and the gas will rush out over a couple of seconds to a few minutes depending on the size of the hole.
– Ash
7 mins ago
Also TNT releases it's energy in a fraction of a second, a pressure vessel won't dump that quickly unless something really strange is going on, normally it will breach and the gas will rush out over a couple of seconds to a few minutes depending on the size of the hole.
– Ash
7 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Gas rushing out of a ruptured pressure vessel has no Brisance so the vessel doesn't tend to break up into many pieces but rather develop only a single breach from which all the gas escapes. This causes reactive motion as the force of the gas escaping pushes the breached vessel away, like blowing up a balloon and then letting it go and it shoots across the room, but with steel instead of rubber. It's dangerous, flying steel is never anything else, but it won't cause a shockwave because it will be a, relatively, slow release, nor would one expect much shrapnel.
answered 43 mins ago
Ash
22.7k462135
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Gas rushing out of a ruptured pressure vessel has no Brisance so the vessel doesn't tend to break up into many pieces but rather develop only a single breach from which all the gas escapes. This causes reactive motion as the force of the gas escaping pushes the breached vessel away, like blowing up a balloon and then letting it go and it shoots across the room, but with steel instead of rubber. It's dangerous, flying steel is never anything else, but it won't cause a shockwave because it will be a, relatively, slow release, nor would one expect much shrapnel.
answered 43 mins ago
Ash
22.7k462135
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Gas rushing out of a ruptured pressure vessel has no Brisance so the vessel doesn't tend to break up into many pieces but rather develop only a single breach from which all the gas escapes. This causes reactive motion as the force of the gas escaping pushes the breached vessel away, like blowing up a balloon and then letting it go and it shoots across the room, but with steel instead of rubber. It's dangerous, flying steel is never anything else, but it won't cause a shockwave because it will be a, relatively, slow release, nor would one expect much shrapnel.
answered 43 mins ago
Ash
22.7k462135
Gas rushing out of a ruptured pressure vessel has no Brisance so the vessel doesn't tend to break up into many pieces but rather develop only a single breach from which all the gas escapes. This causes reactive motion as the force of the gas escaping pushes the breached vessel away, like blowing up a balloon and then letting it go and it shoots across the room, but with steel instead of rubber. It's dangerous, flying steel is never anything else, but it won't cause a shockwave because it will be a, relatively, slow release, nor would one expect much shrapnel.
answered 43 mins ago
Ash
22.7k462135
edited 9 mins ago
answered 43 mins ago
Ash
22.7k462135
answered 43 mins ago
Ash
22.7k462135
answered 43 mins ago
Ash
22.7k462135
22.7k462135
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I've never seen sugar do that
There are a few reports of non-flammable gases expanding (not exploding) in such situations and places that they can kill.
For example in late 70's in Poland storage of non-flammable helium had an explosion while filling typical container (the ones used to fill balloons) which created chain reaction that resulted in 5 deaths.
Remember that what the gas is doing is rising the pressure. If there is a space for that pressure to run out there will be no shockwave (or it will be very short in range). But if he place is small the pressure can be lethal. Like my nephew who punctured rather large helium balloon in home which resulted in destruction of all windows.
The main thing is that such bomb would be far less usable than real bomb. That can be made from a gas canister you attach to your grill. Because here you not only have expanding gas. You have expanding flammable gas. So pressure + flammable + taking out oxygen. And it's cheap and easy to use.
answered 51 mins ago
SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
14.1k22142
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
I've never seen sugar do that
There are a few reports of non-flammable gases expanding (not exploding) in such situations and places that they can kill.
For example in late 70's in Poland storage of non-flammable helium had an explosion while filling typical container (the ones used to fill balloons) which created chain reaction that resulted in 5 deaths.
Remember that what the gas is doing is rising the pressure. If there is a space for that pressure to run out there will be no shockwave (or it will be very short in range). But if he place is small the pressure can be lethal. Like my nephew who punctured rather large helium balloon in home which resulted in destruction of all windows.
The main thing is that such bomb would be far less usable than real bomb. That can be made from a gas canister you attach to your grill. Because here you not only have expanding gas. You have expanding flammable gas. So pressure + flammable + taking out oxygen. And it's cheap and easy to use.
answered 51 mins ago
SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
14.1k22142
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I've never seen sugar do that
There are a few reports of non-flammable gases expanding (not exploding) in such situations and places that they can kill.
For example in late 70's in Poland storage of non-flammable helium had an explosion while filling typical container (the ones used to fill balloons) which created chain reaction that resulted in 5 deaths.
Remember that what the gas is doing is rising the pressure. If there is a space for that pressure to run out there will be no shockwave (or it will be very short in range). But if he place is small the pressure can be lethal. Like my nephew who punctured rather large helium balloon in home which resulted in destruction of all windows.
The main thing is that such bomb would be far less usable than real bomb. That can be made from a gas canister you attach to your grill. Because here you not only have expanding gas. You have expanding flammable gas. So pressure + flammable + taking out oxygen. And it's cheap and easy to use.
answered 51 mins ago
SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
14.1k22142
I've never seen sugar do that
There are a few reports of non-flammable gases expanding (not exploding) in such situations and places that they can kill.
For example in late 70's in Poland storage of non-flammable helium had an explosion while filling typical container (the ones used to fill balloons) which created chain reaction that resulted in 5 deaths.
Remember that what the gas is doing is rising the pressure. If there is a space for that pressure to run out there will be no shockwave (or it will be very short in range). But if he place is small the pressure can be lethal. Like my nephew who punctured rather large helium balloon in home which resulted in destruction of all windows.
The main thing is that such bomb would be far less usable than real bomb. That can be made from a gas canister you attach to your grill. Because here you not only have expanding gas. You have expanding flammable gas. So pressure + flammable + taking out oxygen. And it's cheap and easy to use.
answered 51 mins ago
SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
14.1k22142
answered 51 mins ago
SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
14.1k22142
answered 51 mins ago
SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
14.1k22142
answered 51 mins ago
SZCZERZO KÃ…ÂY
14.1k22142
14.1k22142
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
On Mythbusters, they tested this idea in a mock up of the final scene of the movie Jaws (the heroes shoot a gas canister with a rifle, and it blows up, killing the shark and sparing them). While the canister did not "explode" the resulting release of gas was powerful enough that it turned the canister into a rocket, and the shark stand-in used to test for damage was sufficiently ripped to shreds to call the shark killed.
Per their policy of "test the conditions, duplicate the results", they were able to duplicate the exploding canister using... C4. What else? The final verdict was "Busted" as the myth was specifically testing the explosive capability of the canister when shot by a gun, not its use in lieu of Bat-Shark Repellent.
Note that this myth was retested and reconfirmed as busted, but I don't have the details on the changes to the experiment.
edited 14 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
answered 33 mins ago
hszmv
3,799313
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
On Mythbusters, they tested this idea in a mock up of the final scene of the movie Jaws (the heroes shoot a gas canister with a rifle, and it blows up, killing the shark and sparing them). While the canister did not "explode" the resulting release of gas was powerful enough that it turned the canister into a rocket, and the shark stand-in used to test for damage was sufficiently ripped to shreds to call the shark killed.
Per their policy of "test the conditions, duplicate the results", they were able to duplicate the exploding canister using... C4. What else? The final verdict was "Busted" as the myth was specifically testing the explosive capability of the canister when shot by a gun, not its use in lieu of Bat-Shark Repellent.
Note that this myth was retested and reconfirmed as busted, but I don't have the details on the changes to the experiment.
edited 14 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
answered 33 mins ago
hszmv
3,799313
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
On Mythbusters, they tested this idea in a mock up of the final scene of the movie Jaws (the heroes shoot a gas canister with a rifle, and it blows up, killing the shark and sparing them). While the canister did not "explode" the resulting release of gas was powerful enough that it turned the canister into a rocket, and the shark stand-in used to test for damage was sufficiently ripped to shreds to call the shark killed.
Per their policy of "test the conditions, duplicate the results", they were able to duplicate the exploding canister using... C4. What else? The final verdict was "Busted" as the myth was specifically testing the explosive capability of the canister when shot by a gun, not its use in lieu of Bat-Shark Repellent.
Note that this myth was retested and reconfirmed as busted, but I don't have the details on the changes to the experiment.
edited 14 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
answered 33 mins ago
hszmv
3,799313
On Mythbusters, they tested this idea in a mock up of the final scene of the movie Jaws (the heroes shoot a gas canister with a rifle, and it blows up, killing the shark and sparing them). While the canister did not "explode" the resulting release of gas was powerful enough that it turned the canister into a rocket, and the shark stand-in used to test for damage was sufficiently ripped to shreds to call the shark killed.
Per their policy of "test the conditions, duplicate the results", they were able to duplicate the exploding canister using... C4. What else? The final verdict was "Busted" as the myth was specifically testing the explosive capability of the canister when shot by a gun, not its use in lieu of Bat-Shark Repellent.
Note that this myth was retested and reconfirmed as busted, but I don't have the details on the changes to the experiment.
edited 14 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
answered 33 mins ago
hszmv
3,799313
edited 14 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
edited 14 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
edited 14 mins ago
jdunlop
5,43411035
5,43411035
answered 33 mins ago
hszmv
3,799313
answered 33 mins ago
hszmv
3,799313
answered 33 mins ago
hszmv
3,799313
3,799313
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In the world of Hazmat and fire fighting, there is a commonly-known acronym which is related to your question: B.L.E.V.E.: Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion - although most commonly planned for with flammable vapours such as petroleum distillates, it can absolutely occur with non-flammable gases such as Nitrogen.
Wikipedia BLEVE entry
I worked for some time as a tech writer for a company which had a large number of gas storage and flowing systems for a range of gases used in their industrial processes: Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen; I was also a Hazmat FRO, and part of their in-house Disaster Response Team - and I cna tell you we very creafully briefed the local fire fighters about our facility and the specifics of our gas system, its shutoffs and controls, kill-points, and potentials for BLEVE and other similar pressure risks.
You don't need a super-high pressure canister - you need a canister with a mix of fluid and flammable vapour, and a heat source directly impinging on the canister's outer skin...
answered 14 mins ago
GerardFalla
2,439316
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In the world of Hazmat and fire fighting, there is a commonly-known acronym which is related to your question: B.L.E.V.E.: Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion - although most commonly planned for with flammable vapours such as petroleum distillates, it can absolutely occur with non-flammable gases such as Nitrogen.
Wikipedia BLEVE entry
I worked for some time as a tech writer for a company which had a large number of gas storage and flowing systems for a range of gases used in their industrial processes: Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen; I was also a Hazmat FRO, and part of their in-house Disaster Response Team - and I cna tell you we very creafully briefed the local fire fighters about our facility and the specifics of our gas system, its shutoffs and controls, kill-points, and potentials for BLEVE and other similar pressure risks.
You don't need a super-high pressure canister - you need a canister with a mix of fluid and flammable vapour, and a heat source directly impinging on the canister's outer skin...
answered 14 mins ago
GerardFalla
2,439316
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
In the world of Hazmat and fire fighting, there is a commonly-known acronym which is related to your question: B.L.E.V.E.: Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion - although most commonly planned for with flammable vapours such as petroleum distillates, it can absolutely occur with non-flammable gases such as Nitrogen.
Wikipedia BLEVE entry
I worked for some time as a tech writer for a company which had a large number of gas storage and flowing systems for a range of gases used in their industrial processes: Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen; I was also a Hazmat FRO, and part of their in-house Disaster Response Team - and I cna tell you we very creafully briefed the local fire fighters about our facility and the specifics of our gas system, its shutoffs and controls, kill-points, and potentials for BLEVE and other similar pressure risks.
You don't need a super-high pressure canister - you need a canister with a mix of fluid and flammable vapour, and a heat source directly impinging on the canister's outer skin...
answered 14 mins ago
GerardFalla
2,439316
In the world of Hazmat and fire fighting, there is a commonly-known acronym which is related to your question: B.L.E.V.E.: Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion - although most commonly planned for with flammable vapours such as petroleum distillates, it can absolutely occur with non-flammable gases such as Nitrogen.
Wikipedia BLEVE entry
I worked for some time as a tech writer for a company which had a large number of gas storage and flowing systems for a range of gases used in their industrial processes: Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen; I was also a Hazmat FRO, and part of their in-house Disaster Response Team - and I cna tell you we very creafully briefed the local fire fighters about our facility and the specifics of our gas system, its shutoffs and controls, kill-points, and potentials for BLEVE and other similar pressure risks.
You don't need a super-high pressure canister - you need a canister with a mix of fluid and flammable vapour, and a heat source directly impinging on the canister's outer skin...
answered 14 mins ago
GerardFalla
2,439316
answered 14 mins ago
GerardFalla
2,439316
answered 14 mins ago
GerardFalla
2,439316
answered 14 mins ago
GerardFalla
2,439316
2,439316
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f126661%2fcould-a-super-high-pressure-canister-act-as-a-bomb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
"nothing but scatter dust and shrapnel" - this sounds like an effective anti-personnel weapon. I assume you want to handwave reasons for such weapon? Because conventional explosives are simply cheaper.
– Mołot
59 mins ago
Someone with a physics background might know the exact definitions, but I don't think there's any meaningful difference between 'explosion' and 'high pressure canister being opened'. Both just cause a rapid and destructive expansion of stuff, except one may have more fire than the other. You should probably add some concrete numbers and info on exactly what this bomb is made of: what's in it, how much pressure it has, etc.
– Giter
59 mins ago
@Giter The difference lies in the rate of gas expansion, much slower with a breached pressure vessel than a high explosive where the reaction exceeds the speed of sound.
– Ash
27 mins ago