h a l f b a k e r yTempus fudge-it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
I made the mistake of thinking you guys
all knew what a fuel-air bomb is.
A fuel air bomb does not rely on
concussive force to cause damage. It
sprays out a fine mist of gas, and lets it
spread to make sure that is gets a large
amount of oxygen in it. It then sparks the
cloud. The resulting
intense oxygen burn
causes a large vacuum to form. Nature
abhors a vacuum, so it tries to
immediatley fill it, tearing material apart
with an inward flowing fire-storm.
Any way, a fuel air grenade is a normal
sized hand grenade that functions in the
same manner as a fuel air bomb. It
atomizes and sprays about a pint of
gasoline or other flammable liquid upon
impact, lets it spread a bit through the
air, then ignites it. Boom, fwoosh, mild
implosion.
Plus, if an ememy tries to throw it away
after it lands, the trail of gas leading
back to his hand will probably end up
screwing him over.
I'm sticking to my guns and saying that
this is still cool. And giving me a
fishbone is not going to solve the
problem of violence inherant human
nature. It's just going to make me sad...
(?) Thermobaric hand grenades in development
http://www.nstarweb...tarlinkautumn05.pdf
Not strictly fuel-air. It still isn't "cool" though. [coprocephalous, Dec 20 2005]
Fuel-air grenade for shoulder launcher
http://www.ciar.org...jidr010104_2_n.html
[spidermother, May 05 2006]
HHJJ Bomb
Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy_20Bomb
Balloon lofted bomb thingy [Whirligig, May 05 2006]
[link]
|
| |
It sounds like a concussion/incindiary grenade. You can make one by fastening a large firecracker to a plastic lighter. Wrap it with wire and it's a frag grenade. |
|
| |
Gang bangers have been using them for years. |
|
| |
I'm always afraid my molotov cocktails will blow up in my hand. |
|
| |
It's not that bad. It sounds like you've successfully combined a molotov cocktail and a grenade. But I'm giving you a (-) because I'm not a big fan of war or any of its accessories. |
|
| |
"but it'll be cool" - so it's a snow making device? I don't
send out too many fishbones - in fact I think this is only
my second one since I opened my account. |
|
| |
You could compress the gas so in the grenade itself. So you could probably get a good effect. |
|
| |
Aww, don't worry. I'll some how manage
to get by without the support of people
I don't know, who also don't know when
I'm kidding. |
|
| |
But it's nice to hace someone I don't
know who cares. |
|
| |
With regard to the merit of the idea, it seems half decent, if poorly written. I see no reason why it shouldn't be feasible, nor does it sound particularly like what [rallen] is describing. |
|
| |
What does however, piss me off considerably are annotations like [Honduras]' (apologies for ranting). This is an idea in the public:war category for crying out loud. If you aren't a fan of war, then perhaps you shouldn't read the idea, or at least high-tail it to the back button. But to vote it down purely because you disagree with the subject matter is unfair on the poster. If I were the indoorsy type who doesn't like to get out much, it wouldn't give me justification to say "I'm not into this sport stuff" and vote against everything in the sport category. |
|
| |
Similarly it doesn't stop me from posting a complete rant or voting for an idea simply on the basis that I disagree with a negative vote (I haven't but it's a thought). I'm very glad we have the freedom to vote how we like without having to justify our reasons, but I dislike people voting against ideas because they're about unpopular concepts. (I feel similarly about most of the advertising category and assorted McDonalds ideas). |
|
| |
Off topic, I didn't think people seriously did that. For the same reasons that I never bought into the hype of some users getting automatic buns from personal "fan-clubs". |
|
| |
// if an ememy tries to throw it away after it lands, the trail of gas leading back to his hand will probably end up screwing him over. // Do *you* know what a fuel-air bomb is? |
|
| |
In order to have the proper symmetry, the nebulized fuel is airbursted. If it's on the ground, you don't know what shape the cloud of fuel is, what things are in the way, what directional constraints are being applied - so you don't let it land. A "landed" fuel-air bomb was a dud. A fuel-air bomb that leaves a //trail of gas leading back to his hand// was not only a dud, but is leaking badly. Given a leaky container containing //about a pint of gasoline// your enemy will be only lightly screwed over, at best. |
|
| |
I haven't fishboned this idea. I haven't bunned it, either. I might, though. Steps that would entice a pastry: 1) Study up on the differences between this type of explosive and a regular grenade. 2) Figure out something that, because of those differences, could be done with this grenade but not with a normal one. 3) Come up with an application for it more original than "blow somebody up." I don't know; cooking, insect control, timekeeping, sand art, weather modification... there's gotta be *something* you could do with it. |
|
| |
The halfbakery is a dynamic medium. You
don't need to put (revised) in the title to let
people know that you have changed your
idea. An annotation usually suffices. |
|
| |
Those that are interested in your idea will
revisit it. Those that didn't like it first time
around may not like it any more. |
|
| |
[admin: removed '(revised)' from idea title] |
|
| |
Thanks for the constructive criticism, guys. |
|
| |
I'm thinking that a proper fuel-air explosive likely couldn't be safely or effectively thrown as it needs to airburst and before it can do that it needs to generate a cloud of atomized fuel. I doubt a hand-thrown object would produce enough duration aloft for this sequence to be carried out and, even if it did, I doubt the lobber could throw it far enough to be safe for themselves. |
|
| |
I recall reading somewhere that in the first Gulf War, fuel-air explosives were used and that the bodies Iraqi soldiers within several thousand feet of these explosions were found with their lungs crushed from the overpressure. (Could be a myth, though) |
|
| |
As [Bristolz] says, the real problem with this as a device will be getting it of sufficient size to be useful in combat and being able to throw it far enough to avoid 'getting your own back'. |
|
| |
I thought a fuel-air explosion caused damage by shockwaves and overpressure, same as every other explosion. This implosion bit sounds fishy, and pretty harmless in small quantities. |
|
| |
Nature does not abhor a vacuum. |
|
| |
They're not friendly to eachother. |
|
| |
Just make it into a mortar round. |
|
| |
Fuel air explosions Utilize Pressure and shock waves to do damage. The vacuum effect is secondary and far less consequential. As to area of effect, The Fuel Air Bomb is the second most powerful form of explosive after the atomic Bomb. Thier effects are very similar and for most conventional uses a FA is just as powerful as an Atomic Weapon. |
|
| |
The russians developed an RPG round that was fuel-air based, so your idea is baked-ish. The rpg was used for soft materiel demolitions and for taking out infantry. |
|
| |
I've seen footage of an FAE bomb being dropped and detonating: I'd guess the entire cycle of (eject fuel, air mix, detonate) took something like 1/10 of a second. I dunno, but the bomb only moved a metre or two between dispersion and detonation; so Bristolz, you're right about the airburst, but as long as you can lob it above the target, and your fuzing method is sound, you're ok. |
|
| |
I'm not sure a hand grenade would be entirely effective as an FAE, without some kind of altitude based fuse: FAE's need to be air dispersed in a cloud over (read, above) the target, as ground-effect is a major factor in effectiveness. so you'd have to have a pretty good arm. I'd agree with whirligig, a mortar round would be better. |
|
| |
Fuel Air Grenade lobbing trebuchet? |
|
| |
Instead of a trebuchet, how about a 40mm grenade launcher (M79,M203) or a rifle-launched type. IIRC they can be 'lobbed' like mortars, so, taking some of Custardgits' ideas, it ought to be feasable... |
|
| |
//A fuel air bomb does not rely on concussive force to cause damage// Relatively long-lasting (compared to high explosives) massive overpressure is the main destructive element of a fuel-air explosive. |
|
| |
You could just put your F-A grenade in a HHJJ bomb's payload (see link), but then it wouldn't be nearly as happy or bring any joy...A Sad-Sad-Mad-Mad Bomb? |
|
| |
HEY [putterling], it's custardgUts, not custardgIts.... although as typo's go, it's rather appropriate, don't you think? |
|
| |
How does one design a hand thrown explosive to detonate a controlled distance above the ground? |
|
| |
If you're on level ground, you could have a digital air pressure sensor, acting as an altimeter -- when the pin is pulled, it starts measuring, waits for an increase in altitude, followed by a decrease in altitude. |
|
| |
However, that wouldn't work if you need to throw your grenade up to, or down from, a rooftop. |
|
| |
The movie Underworld featured a fuel-air hand grenade. |
|
| |
About the [link]ed shoulder launched f/a-grenade: It's 4.8kg, producing a blast equal to 2kg TNT, so i'm not entirely sure what they wanted to accomplish. |
|
| |
The standard OG-7V Fragmentation round weighs 2Kg, but only a small proportion (about 350g) of this is explosive. The stated lethal radius is given as 7m. But the thermobaric projectile, while heavier, has a lethal radios of 10m - that's a huge gain in effective area, 314 square m as opposed to 155 sq m for the conventional round. And bulk overpressure weapons like that are extremely effective in destroying buildings; the standard round just tends to punch holes in them. |
|
| |