|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 20, 2014 14:39:52 GMT
According to one of my sources Mythbusters are interested in getting some more explosions onto the show, as they have had few 'explosive' myths recently.
Now before you start complaining about the show 'dumbing down' by having explosions in it, take note that this is your chance to find myths that involve explosions for more than just the sake of blowing things up. Remember, they DID use TC as a source for the Star Wars Special so they do pay attention to ideas posted.
We've had the 'Shockwave Spacecraft' myth posted on here, which would fit the bill nicely. As would the 'Razzle Dazzle' myth (about the effectiveness of the Dazzle camouflage scheme used on ships in WW1). Both are probably good examples of 'smart' explosive myths.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 20, 2014 15:38:19 GMT
well, Adam already did my reinterpretation of painting with explosives... I don't recall if they have done hairspray explosion or not - and it is probably not a good idea to do something that simple. I recall in college, there was a rumor that a certain chemistry class would teach the students how to make an explosive that was so sensitive that it would be triggered by people stepping on it - and students would paint sections of sidewalk with it as a prank. this would have 3 requirements: First, can you make an explosive that sensitive. Second, is it still explosive in free air. Third, is it harmless enough to use as a practical joke. (also, it has ingredients that are not in the average garage, and can be obscured) I believe the explosive is a variant of the same stuff they use for "fun pop" fireworks, which are slightly less sensitive, but nominally harmless in the size they are made.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 20, 2014 19:53:22 GMT
At one point in time, I had a United States military instructional manual from the 1960s about booby traps (it appears to have disappeared).
One of the traps that they mentioned involved ball-point pens, the type with the button on top that you have to press to extend and retract the point.
IIRC, the manual alleged that during WWII, the Russians were producing booby-traps that looked just like these pens; there was a small payload in the pen itself, and the button on top was the detonator. The idea was that German soldiers would steal these pens as trophies, only to blow their hands off when they tried to write with them.
Could such a weapon be possible, and if so how much damage would it do?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 21, 2014 2:23:50 GMT
At one point in time, I had a United States military instructional manual from the 1960s about booby traps (it appears to have disappeared). One of the traps that they mentioned involved ball-point pens, the type with the button on top that you have to press to extend and retract the point. IIRC, the manual alleged that during WWII, the Russians were producing booby-traps that looked just like these pens; there was a small payload in the pen itself, and the button on top was the detonator. The idea was that German soldiers would steal these pens as trophies, only to blow their hands off when they tried to write with them. Could such a weapon be possible, and if so how much damage would it do? using WWII era explosives, of course. that would also contain elements they could blur out - rendering it reasonably safe to air.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Feb 21, 2014 7:15:58 GMT
Let's not forget the Apple Core Explosive from Firefly (in the other thread).
The Shockwave Spacecraft would be very cool (Project Orion, I assume).
An older firefighter I knew said they lived by the adage: "Burning cars don't explode". This is because the fuel/air mixture doesn't reach the critical ratio because fumes are burnt off. Figuring out how to burn a car and make it explode could be fun.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 21, 2014 8:28:21 GMT
They've already done exploding pen as part of the James Bond specials, ditto exploding gas tanks. Setting fire to an entire car would probably be problematical anyway, due to the large amount of toxic smoke that would be produced.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 21, 2014 14:18:58 GMT
They've already done exploding pen as part of the James Bond specials, ditto exploding gas tanks. Setting fire to an entire car would probably be problematical anyway, due to the large amount of toxic smoke that would be produced. also, they have done two forms of exploding cars, already. (car off cliff and movie car explosion.) but yes, it is highly unlikely for a car fire to explode - but there ARE things on cars that go "blam" when the car burns. (tires, lift struts, energy absorbing bumper mounts, air conditioning equipment)
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Feb 21, 2014 16:24:20 GMT
They've done the punctured gas tank in the past, true, but not the "start the car burning and it's a time bomb from there". It's a subtle distinction to us, I agree, but it's still a common theme in movies/TV. This firefighter said he hated people moving accident victims (and thus causing further injury) when it was obvious (to him) that they were in no real danger--the good Samaritan was just afraid the car would blow up and kill everyone. How about "Silent Explosion"? By that, I mean another common movie myth: The crooks/bank robbers/spies place an explosive against a wall in a building, then somehow muffle the sound with sandbags/furniture/whatever so that the authorities don't notice--even if they're in the next room. Dangerous, I know, but maybe there's some way to do it safely? (I'm brainstorming here and trying to work up more than a light drizzle... )
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 21, 2014 17:22:30 GMT
They've done the punctured gas tank in the past, true, but not the "start the car burning and it's a time bomb from there". It's a subtle distinction to us, I agree, but it's still a common theme in movies/TV. This firefighter said he hated people moving accident victims (and thus causing further injury) when it was obvious (to him) that they were in no real danger--the good Samaritan was just afraid the car would blow up and kill everyone. How about "Silent Explosion"? By that, I mean another common movie myth: The crooks/bank robbers/spies place an explosive against a wall in a building, then somehow muffle the sound with sandbags/furniture/whatever so that the authorities don't notice--even if they're in the next room. Dangerous, I know, but maybe there's some way to do it safely? (I'm brainstorming here and trying to work up more than a light drizzle... ) if the car is on fire, there is justification for moving the patient. car fires do spread rapidly. - so I assume the firefighter was referring to cars that were not on fire. however, many many crashes involve plumes of white pouring out of the engine compartment as coolant sprays on the hot engine. I like the silenced explosion idea. we just need to find specifics. - as for safety, it can be done at the bomb range.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Feb 21, 2014 17:47:26 GMT
Sort of explody:
In the film, "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot", Clint Eastwood uses an anti-aircraft gun to blast into a safe.
A quick scene is at 1:42 in this clip:
Could you fire a cannon like that and would it penetrate a safe?
Or would it kill everyone in the room?
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 21, 2014 18:33:38 GMT
They've done the punctured gas tank in the past, true, but not the "start the car burning and it's a time bomb from there". It's a subtle distinction to us, I agree, but it's still a common theme in movies/TV. This firefighter said he hated people moving accident victims (and thus causing further injury) when it was obvious (to him) that they were in no real danger--the good Samaritan was just afraid the car would blow up and kill everyone. How about "Silent Explosion"? By that, I mean another common movie myth: The crooks/bank robbers/spies place an explosive against a wall in a building, then somehow muffle the sound with sandbags/furniture/whatever so that the authorities don't notice--even if they're in the next room. Dangerous, I know, but maybe there's some way to do it safely? (I'm brainstorming here and trying to work up more than a light drizzle... ) if the car is on fire, there is justification for moving the patient. car fires do spread rapidly. - so I assume the firefighter was referring to cars that were not on fire. however, many many crashes involve plumes of white pouring out of the engine compartment as coolant sprays on the hot engine. On April 26th of last year I was witness to a fatal car crash; a 20-year-old who had alcohol, marijuana, and Xanax in his system crossed over the highway, cleared a creek, and went sideways into a strip complex next to the newspaper office where I work. The engine caught on fire when the car impacted the building. The first police officer on the scene immediately told everyone to get back, and then used his baton to break out some windows in the hopes of getting to the driver (who, it turned out, was killed on impact). In the time it took me to walk back across a small paved walkway to the office, the engine fire had ignited something and engulfed the entire front of the building. Video report of the incident that was filmed the "following" morning (the accident took place at around 2:45 AM) Report from rival newspaper Killeen Daily HeraldKWTX news reportFind My Accident.com reportYeah - it wasn't pleasant being witness to any of this.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 22, 2014 1:30:30 GMT
if the car is on fire, there is justification for moving the patient. car fires do spread rapidly. - so I assume the firefighter was referring to cars that were not on fire. however, many many crashes involve plumes of white pouring out of the engine compartment as coolant sprays on the hot engine. On April 26th of last year I was witness to a fatal car crash; a 20-year-old who had alcohol, marijuana, and Xanax in his system crossed over the highway, cleared a creek, and went sideways into a strip complex next to the newspaper office where I work. The engine caught on fire when the car impacted the building. The first police officer on the scene immediately told everyone to get back, and then used his baton to break out some windows in the hopes of getting to the driver (who, it turned out, was killed on impact). In the time it took me to walk back across a small paved walkway to the office, the engine fire had ignited something and engulfed the entire front of the building. Video report of the incident that was filmed the "following" morning (the accident took place at around 2:45 AM) Report from rival newspaper Killeen Daily HeraldKWTX news reportFind My Accident.com reportYeah - it wasn't pleasant being witness to any of this. I recall you mentioning it at the time. emergency response is almost always unpleasant to witness, and it gives us a rather twisted and morbid sense of humor - which we are very careful not to expose the customers to.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 22, 2014 8:43:28 GMT
I recall a story that was posted on Disco, and discussed, a few times about sabotaging ammunition supplies and weapons. The story goes that soldiers would replace the gunpowder in a cartridge with explosives, so when the round was fired it would destroy the gun.
The real question isn't so much about the replacing the powder, as it is to if the primer would be strong enough to detonate the explosives. Given than primers sometimes use the same component as blasting caps...
I seem to recall enough information turning up that indicates that this may have been done, but nothing to confirm that it would have caused an explosion rather than just jamming the gun.
Would be a nice and fairly simple myth for them to try out.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 22, 2014 8:57:56 GMT
I recall a story that was posted on Disco, and discussed, a few times about sabotaging ammunition supplies and weapons. The story goes that soldiers would replace the gunpowder in a cartridge with explosives, so when the round was fired it would destroy the gun. The real question isn't so much about the replacing the powder, as it is to if the primer would be strong enough to detonate the explosives. Given than primers sometimes use the same component as blasting caps... I seem to recall enough information turning up that indicates that this may have been done, but nothing to confirm that it would have caused an explosion rather than just jamming the gun. Would be a nice and fairly simple myth for them to try out. I do not recall it, but it sounds like a good one - the challenge I foresee there is getting someone to donate weapons to be potentially destroyed. it could be tested with a range of weapons - including, if this dates back to WWI, loading black powder cartridges with smokeless powder.
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Feb 22, 2014 9:02:53 GMT
I heard of someone "signing" their name in solid steel using Primacord. Is this possible or just a myth?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 22, 2014 9:14:40 GMT
I heard of someone "signing" their name in solid steel using Primacord. Is this possible or just a myth? nice
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 22, 2014 9:38:27 GMT
In answer to the question about AA guns;
The smallest dedicated AA gun used by the US Military is/was the .50 cal, who's armour piercing rounds were required to be able to go through a minimum of 24mm of steel plating. In other words about an inch.
Most safes (at least at the time of the film) would rarely have more than an inch of steel plating, so a larger gun should have no problems putting a hole in one. Heavy duty - that is bank - safes might well have much thicker walls than that, but since such safes are all custom built and may well date to earlier periods working out exactly how thick any specific safe is/was would require researching that safe. (And if that safe is still in use you probably won't get any information about it).
So it is plausible that you could use an AA gun to get into a safe. Having anything left inside that hasn't been shredded is a different matter of course.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 22, 2014 16:26:34 GMT
In answer to the question about AA guns; The smallest dedicated AA gun used by the US Military is/was the .50 cal, who's armour piercing rounds were required to be able to go through a minimum of 24mm of steel plating. In other words about an inch. Most safes (at least at the time of the film) would rarely have more than an inch of steel plating, so a larger gun should have no problems putting a hole in one. Heavy duty - that is bank - safes might well have much thicker walls than that, but since such safes are all custom built and may well date to earlier periods working out exactly how thick any specific safe is/was would require researching that safe. (And if that safe is still in use you probably won't get any information about it). So it is plausible that you could use an AA gun to get into a safe. Having anything left inside that hasn't been shredded is a different matter of course. IIRC, the clip showed a 20mm gun, and the safe looked like it was cast concrete.
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Feb 23, 2014 4:52:08 GMT
I recall a story that was posted on Disco, and discussed, a few times about sabotaging ammunition supplies and weapons. The story goes that soldiers would replace the gunpowder in a cartridge with explosives, so when the round was fired it would destroy the gun. The real question isn't so much about the replacing the powder, as it is to if the primer would be strong enough to detonate the explosives. Given than primers sometimes use the same component as blasting caps... I seem to recall enough information turning up that indicates that this may have been done, but nothing to confirm that it would have caused an explosion rather than just jamming the gun. Would be a nice and fairly simple myth for them to try out. It was Project Eldest Son that was talked about several times on the old Disco boards. Read the entire link, it is pretty detailed on the concept, goals and execution of Project Eldest Son. The explosive used was similar to PETN and sufficiently sensitive enough to be detonated by a ordinary rifle primer.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 23, 2014 12:08:11 GMT
Thank you Former, that was exactly the information I was looking for.
|
|