Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

All Internet links/videos/pictures in here ONLY

Is he a piss artist? those sketches look **** all like George Michael.
as well as prominent queer icons including Madonna and Judy Garland.
Is that true, Jarrod? :? Madonna and the late Judy Garland are considered an iccn to the LGT+4 set?
Queer Duck, the Gaylord cartoon had a thing about Barbara Streisand, but not a word was mentioned about Madonna or Garland. (I wonder if they have a similar Jones for Liza Minelli? She was tasty in Cabaret, but that's got to be pushing 40 years ago now? )

Queer Duck and his bud.jpg
 

sirbhp

LE
Book Reviewer
I did read that due to the ongoing and escalated problems the silos , made of reinforced concrete, not with steel , thousands of windows and stairwells, lift shafts .

They were full of grain , as can be seen all over the floor.

I would think 120,000 tonnes of energy absorbing loose stuff would,be a very good Blast wall.


Oh it bloody well was.


Although grain towers are a notorious explosion hazard in themselves . Grain ships have to be specially earthed when pumping the stuff in or out and the dust from grain stores is highly susceptible to flashing off.
As an aside during the Lebanese wars, the use of a small amount of explosive sacks of grain /flour plus a few jerry cans of petrol was used successfully in clearing out tower blocks . Some of the B1 Sappers on here might be able to e;elucidate.
I just wondered how the blast and bits an bobs didnt blow the graneries up once they were breached.

Over tlo you EODMATT
 

sirbhp

LE
Book Reviewer
I did read that due to the ongoing and escalated problems the silos , made of reinforced concrete, not with steel , thousands of windows and stairwells, lift shafts .

They were full of grain , as can be seen all over the floor.

I would think 120,000 tonnes of energy absorbing loose stuff would,be a very good Blast wall.


Oh it bloody well was.


Although grain towers are a notorious explosion hazard in themselves . Grain ships have to be specially earthed when pumping the stuff in or out and the dust from grain stores is highly susceptible to flashing off.
As an aside during the Lebanese wars, the use of a small amount of explosive sacks of grain /flour plus a few jerry cans of petrol was used successfully in clearing out tower blocks . Some of the B1 Sappers on here might be able to e;elucidate.
I just wondered how the blast and bits an bobs didnt blow the graneries up once they were breached.

Over tlo you EODMATT
 
I just wondered how the blast and bits an bobs didnt blow the graneries up once they were breached.
A fuel-air explosion needs a mix of the fuel and air in the correct proportions to go bang. Some fuels aren't fussy and will form an explosive mixture in a wide range of concentrations (acetylene in particular will explode at virtually any percentage in air). Most fuels only explode at a particular percentage of the fuel suspended in air.

For those silos to explode they would have needed to be mostly empty with a relatively small amount of fine grain dust suspended in the air. As the silos were pretty much full (apparently) there wouldn't have been enough oxygen present to cause an explosion.

It's the same reason that a jerry can filled with petrol is less dangerous than one that mostly contains petrol vapour.
 
There's also a difference between a reinforced concrete structure and an almost instantaneous blast wave compared to a steel based structure being hit by over a hundred tons moving at several hundred miles per hour and then sustained fires.

Apart from that they're identical situations :rolleyes:

Also distance be your friend. Explosive power diminishes by the ‘half inverse cube law’. Just a few metres makes a big difference. Also explosive force will always take the easy way out. So if only 25% of the circumference is blocked, expect much to the force to go the other way. It’s why we build sandbag walls around dems.
 
Although grain towers are a notorious explosion hazard in themselves . Grain ships have to be specially earthed when pumping the stuff in or out and the dust from grain stores is highly susceptible to flashing off.
As an aside during the Lebanese wars, the use of a small amount of explosive sacks of grain /flour plus a few jerry cans of petrol was used successfully in clearing out tower blocks . Some of the B1 Sappers on here might be able to e;elucidate.
I just wondered how the blast and bits an bobs didnt blow the graneries up once they were breached.

Over tlo you EODMATT

One of my bat sims once graced the front cover of ‘Sapper’ magazine. Electrically initiated thunderflashes (made by an ATO) in bags of flour. Makes a great Hollywood style ball of flame.

The same design of device was used to great effect to blow up Jim Davidson, as I have posted elsewhere :)
 
Also distance be your friend. Explosive power diminishes by the ‘half inverse cube law’. Just a few metres makes a big difference. Also explosive force will always take the easy way out. So if only 25% of the circumference is blocked, expect much to the force to go the other way. It’s why we build sandbag walls around dems.
Never heard of that, every day a school day. Does the half apply to the overall result or the cubed distance?

My usual measurement of explosive power is the number of people who ask "What the fuck have you done now?" which given the ridiculous number of H&S regulations imposed is getting smaller and smaller.
 
Never heard of that, every day a school day. Does the half apply to the overall result or the cubed distance?

My usual measurement of explosive power is the number of people who ask "What the **** have you done now?" which given the ridiculous number of H&S regulations imposed is getting smaller and smaller.

For an airburst it's just the inverse cube law. It’s ‘half’ because for most explosions it’s on the surface.
 
For an airburst it's just the inverse cube law. It’s ‘half’ because for most explosions it’s on the surface.
Surface detonation means the blast that would have gone downwards is reflected back out from the ground so the effective outwards force is doubled compared to an airburst?

Or the blast is partially absorbed by the ground so the effective outwards force is reduced?

I might be being thick but I can see two ways of applying that half and I'm not sure which one is right.
 

HE117

LE
Also distance be your friend. Explosive power diminishes by the ‘half inverse cube law’. Just a few metres makes a big difference. Also explosive force will always take the easy way out. So if only 25% of the circumference is blocked, expect much to the force to go the other way. It’s why we build sandbag walls around dems.
You most certainly can reduce blast by using sandbags, but the main reason for using them on dems, (and digging pits and undercuts) is to catch the frag, which is pure 1/2 mv squared and, as we all know will carry mayhem great distances.. !

There have been a few jolly wheezes to mitigate blast over the years... anyone remember the "foaming pig"?
 
Surface detonation means the blast that would have gone downwards is reflected back out from the ground so the effective outwards force is doubled compared to an airburst?

Or the blast is partially absorbed by the ground so the effective outwards force is reduced?

I might be being thick but I can see two ways of applying that half and I'm not sure which one is right.

The first one I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You most certainly can reduce blast by using sandbags, but the main reason for using them on dems, (and digging pits and undercuts) is to catch the frag, which is pure 1/2 mv squared and, as we all know will carry mayhem great distances.. !

There have been a few jolly wheezes to mitigate blast over the years... anyone remember the "foaming pig"?

Yes you’re right of course about frag. I was being lazy as this wasn’t a discussion about frag. I should have typed ‘one of the reasons’...as indeed frag is a longer range risk*. :)


* My autocorrect keeps wanting to write ‘rusk’.

A ‘longer-range rusk’. The mind boggles...
 

Latest Threads

Top