propellant vs. brisant

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

At 05:26 AM 4/20/99 +0200, Anonymous wrote:
>>Smokeless powders--and I have many, 
>>including Bullseye, Unique,
>>2400, etc.--essentially _cannot_ be made to 
>>explode. Period.
>
>Sorry Tim, but you're just wrong, man.  Bullseye is a
nitrocellulose/nitroglycerin combo that combusts at (these figures are from
memory) around 2,500 fps and detonates at around 26,000 fps (up there with
RDX and ANFO).  You just need a proper cap to detonate it.  If you _really_
want to argue this, just say so and I'll go dig up the references.

You're both wrong.

Smokeless powder is a *propellant*, like black powder, or that
rubber-oxidizer mix used in solid rockets, not a true shattering (brisant)
explosive.  A brisant explosive is a "high explosive" to rubes,
cf low explosive propellants, mining explosives, etc.  Doesn't
matter that there's a little nitro in double-based powders; they
don't shatter.

Smokeless will not *detonate* (a technical chemical term), but it makes
a fine bomb if *confined* to a container that bursts --like any propellant.
So does dry ice (which, inside a soda bottle, is a WMD in Calif.)

[Careful, smokeless powder can have BATF tracer compounds in it.]

Anon #1 is also wrong about putting ANFO in the same class as 
a brisant like RDX.  ANFO is so gentle, its heaving motion 
is used in quarrying and mining.   RDX is much different.
And the det velocity of RDX is several times that of ANFO -hell,
its like twice the rate of Wile E coyote's favorite TNT.

And finally, some high explosives can be cooked off, burned for heat
in fact, without detonating, although this isn't recommended.

Finally, a jar of clear fluid could be a bomb, depending on the fluid;
a detonator isn't required for the more unstable nitrate esters.


--Nitropunk