|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 16, 2015 10:22:29 GMT
Have a look at the shipping containers in the port in China.
They overdid it, much bigger than Adam and Jamie could....
21tons of TNT equivalent blasts, and they toppled several stacks of containers.
But this begs the question...
We have seen Adam and Jamie really really torture shipping containers in the past, including uising one as a shop "bunker"
So take a standard metal built shipping container, and, just exactly how bomb proof is it anyway?....
What size explosion inside or outside would make one fail catastrophically....
And as they found someone alive in a container stack in the Chinese port less than 150yard from the blast,...
Can their blast disks show just how much of a blast is survivable if you hide inside s shipping crate.
And no, I cant resist....
quote, "No no no no, your only supposed to blow the bloody doors off."
(Italian job reference)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 16, 2015 14:49:54 GMT
well, they HAVE a shipping container... they could do double duty in the process by seeing if they can determine a scalablity in explosions.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 16, 2015 14:54:30 GMT
Well, they have used shipping containers in the past to contain possible explosive myth tests. Just need to scale it up a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Aug 18, 2015 4:27:32 GMT
Looks like some containers fared better than others  |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 18, 2015 9:36:29 GMT
Looks like some containers fared better than others Ansdolutely,... which is why I ask just how much can you over-do it?.... I am thinking. Just how much ANFO did they use to make the concrete mixer "go away", and what would that do to their "Bunker". Of course, this is presuming they take tat bunker to the desert FIRST...... And how else do it need to be. Then what would happen "inside". This could be interesting research...... Especially if the go one stage further and do a twin container test with one painted liberally with Bed-Liner. Would this interest Military?... For one, if they had a mobile "wall" for any future camps in hostile places, how is a few hundred shipping container full of gear for transport useful when those containers can then be used as storage on site and a blast proof wall at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 18, 2015 19:48:05 GMT
Looks like some containers fared better than others Ansdolutely,... which is why I ask just how much can you over-do it?.... I am thinking. Just how much ANFO did they use to make the concrete mixer "go away", and what would that do to their "Bunker". Of course, this is presuming they take tat bunker to the desert FIRST...... And how else do it need to be. Then what would happen "inside". This could be interesting research...... Especially if the go one stage further and do a twin container test with one painted liberally with Bed-Liner. Would this interest Military?... For one, if they had a mobile "wall" for any future camps in hostile places, how is a few hundred shipping container full of gear for transport useful when those containers can then be used as storage on site and a blast proof wall at the same time. Per Wikipedia, it was 850 pounds of ANFO. Per the National Counter Terrorism Center, ANFO has a pressure equivalent equal to 82% that of TNT. So, the MBs used the equivalent of roughly 686 pounds of TNT. Considering the explosion in China: 21 tons -> 42,000 lbs -> 61x what the MBs used. (51,219 pounds, or 25.5+ tons, of ANFO) A great dream, but probably not something the MBs would ever try. Getting back to the myth idea, I believe it is first necessary to define the parameters of "What is bomb proof?" (as the MBs did with 'What is Bullet Proof?') Should it be definied as not fully breaching the container (no visual cracks or air leaks)? Or, all sides remain intact/connected, minor breaches acceptable? In other words, how much damage is allowed while considering the container bomb proof? |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 19, 2015 0:31:01 GMT
Two things.
1: I'm with TUM on defining what would be considered "bomb proof" and suggest the benchmark should be survivability. How much good will it do you that the walls haven't caved in completely, if the pressure generated is still enough to kill you, or at least leave you fatally wounded?
2: Yes, many containers in the pictures we've seen from China seem to have fared pretty well, but how many containers were in front of those? Looks to me like there were stacks upon stacks of containers, so how many of the ones we've seen intact were anywhere near the actual explosion and how many were just toppled over due to a domino effect? I'd be willing to bet the ones closest to ground zero didn't do quite as well as the ones we're seeing in ponytail61's posted pic.
Actually, if you look closely, the ones just in front of the flames, specifically the two red ones under the blue one on top, look like they've partially collapsed, even though they're still standing.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 19, 2015 3:04:57 GMT
"bomb proof" containers would seem to me to describe protecting the contents, rather than the condition of the container.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 19, 2015 3:07:15 GMT
"bomb proof" containers would seem to me to describe protecting the contents, rather than the condition of the container. Exactly. The term "bullet proof vest" doesn't imply that the vest can't be damaged by bullets. It means the vest takes the damage, so the wearer doesn't have to. |
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Aug 19, 2015 3:19:32 GMT
I see the number 21 megatons being thrown around but there were two explosions. The 21 megaton and a secondary 3 megaton explosion. We don't really know which explosion the container was 150 yds. from. Here's a better pic. Whoa. And her's a link to it so you can really zoom in. www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/2015/08/15/tianjin_debris_reut.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 19, 2015 8:05:22 GMT
I just got news that the company only got its hazard licence in JUNE.
It has been trading in questionable materials for years, but it just finally got licensed in June.
But away from that.
couple of things...
No one is expecting 21 tons of TNT to roll up on the Alameda Bomb range are they?...
I believe that it is possible to make that one complete containers full when it comes to weight limits.....
However.
I also believe that there is no way on earth that any sensible person in their right mind would sanction 21 tons of TNT to be even in the same storage locker, let alone on the road at the same time.
Putting 21 tons in the same shipping container is against the law of strategic arms limitations in many world countries.
Find me a driver who would drive that truck.... and thats one who knows exactly what he is doing so has experience of Hazard goods.
[Yes I would run several miles, I aint that brave] [And I also retired my Hazard licence recently... ]
We are NOT expecting 21 tons of TNT to be the blast under test....
I was using the fact that someone got pulled out alive from a shipping container less than 150 yards from that blast as a reason to test.
So what is a reasonable "bomb" when discussing "Bomb proof"?..
Good question.
What is a reasonable survival.....
Blast discs to indicate pressure wave survival and Styrofoam dummies to show injury?...
EDIT.
I hear someone stating that TNT plastic explosive is extremely safe and until it has a detonator and is primed it wont explode.
Dont give a pair of fetid dingos kidneys.
Its high explosive, it says so on the hazard plate, there is risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 19, 2015 9:49:11 GMT
Wow... That's a really disturbing image!
ponytail61, do you know if that image was taken directly over ground zero? From the looks of how stuff was scattered, point of origin might have been right around where the plume of white smoke is coming up, but I have no idea if it could possibly be even further back. Looking at how the shipping containers are piled up, you'd think the tanks would have been completely decimated if this was the point of origin, so it might be even further away. Then again, the tanks have clearly been subjected to some very severe heat, compared to the shipping containers, so this could be very close.
If this is ground zero, a rough estimate, based on the rows of cars in the background, puts the blast radius (or at least how far the fireball reached - the shockwace clearly took out windows for miles) at about 4-600 yards, but 21 megatons...? I can't even begin to imagine if a 4-600 yard blast radius is considered big or small when we're talking about a blast of that magnitude!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 19, 2015 12:54:13 GMT
Here is a good question to mention: What was the relative location of the container holding the TNT? Was it in the bottom of the stack? Center?
Would the relative location of the container effect the amount of damage done by the blast?
What was the relative location of the stack that the container was in? On edge of a 3x3 cluster? In the middle of a 4x4 cluster?
Would this effect the amount of damage done?
|
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Aug 19, 2015 13:13:05 GMT
Wow... That's a really disturbing image! ponytail61, do you know if that image was taken directly over ground zero? From the looks of how stuff was scattered, point of origin might have been right around where the plume of white smoke is coming up, but I have no idea if it could possibly be even further back. Looking at how the shipping containers are piled up, you'd think the tanks would have been completely decimated if this was the point of origin, so it might be even further away. Then again, the tanks have clearly been subjected to some very severe heat, compared to the shipping containers, so this could be very close. If this is ground zero, a rough estimate, based on the rows of cars in the background, puts the blast radius (or at least how far the fireball reached - the shockwace clearly took out windows for miles) at about 4-600 yards, but 21 megatons...? I can't even begin to imagine if a 4-600 yard blast radius is considered big or small when we're talking about a blast of that magnitude! Not sure. Found this high res aerial photo and cant tell if the black spot is a holding pond that's now filled with chemicals or a crater. www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/2015/08/16/china_tianjin_explosion_str01_51991013.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 19, 2015 13:57:50 GMT
next question: was that 150 yards from the center of the blast, or 150 yards from the edge of the "devastation zone"
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 19, 2015 14:08:32 GMT
How much damage was a direct result of the blast and how much was caused by the ensuing shockwave?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 19, 2015 14:28:21 GMT
How much damage was a direct result of the blast and how much was caused by the ensuing shockwave? meaning where is the demarcation between the blast radius and the shockwave damage? good question. it would be cool if they generated an educational series based on this explosion detailing that sort of thing. (and by "they" I mean the Chinese authorities and whoever they hired to do it) |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Aug 19, 2015 14:34:43 GMT
If you detonated 1 ton of TNT in an enclosed trailer, could you extrapolate the blast radius & shockwave zone from the result? Though, increasing the amount of TNT, would the damage be a linear relation (2T TNT = 2x damage of 1T) or exponential (2T TNT = damage of 1T ^2)?
Is there a formula for figuring out how much damage is caused by a certain amount of TNT?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 19, 2015 14:50:17 GMT
If you detonated 1 ton of TNT in an enclosed trailer, could you extrapolate the blast radius & shockwave zone from the result? Though, increasing the amount of TNT, would the damage be a linear relation (2T TNT = 2x damage of 1T) or exponential (2T TNT = damage of 1T ^2)? Is there a formula for figuring out how much damage is caused by a certain amount of TNT? that was the heart of my question about whether explosions are scalable. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 19, 2015 22:11:50 GMT
If you detonated 1 ton of TNT in an enclosed trailer, could you extrapolate the blast radius & shockwave zone from the result? Though, increasing the amount of TNT, would the damage be a linear relation (2T TNT = 2x damage of 1T) or exponential (2T TNT = damage of 1T ^2)? Is there a formula for figuring out how much damage is caused by a certain amount of TNT? Define "damage". That's an extremely subjective term. |
|
