Thread
:
CB Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition
View Single Post
#
159
March 23rd 04, 08:58 PM
John Michael Williams
Posts: n/a
(Bill Sloman) wrote in message . com...
(John Michael Williams) wrote in message . com...
...
I share this skepticism. Burning TNT probably would produce 10x more
free energy than detonating it.
Trinitrotoluene is C7H5N3O6 and would burn to 7 CO2 molecules, 2.5 H2O
molecules and 1.5 N2 molecules - for which you'd need 10.5 extra
oxygen atoms, over and above the six oxygen atoms available in the
original TNT molecule.
Being simple-minded about it, 16.5/6 is 2.75, not ten, and that
exaggerates the advantage, because burning carbon to carbon monoxide
release quite a lot more energy than burning carbon monoxide to carbon
dioxide, which is where you use up seven of your extra 10.5 oxygen
atoms.
Right, letting the N_3O_6 drop out as nitrogen dioxide,
7*CO_2 + 2.5*H_2O is just 16.5. However, detonation
might not even produce the nitrogen dioxide, and it
might lose energy by producing NO instead of dioxide.
So I'm not sure where the 6 comes from.
Also, the energy from C+O_2 would be much lower than that
from the H_2+O, per O, I think, but I'm not sure how
well defined the combustion process is, that is being
assumed. I think, if detonation in air also entailed
complete combustion, then detonation would
produce the same energy as would direct combustion.
You mentioned something earlier about atomic hydrogen: I
am not sure about this, because combination to H_2 would
just be creation of one covalent bond. Can you explain
further?
The exact amounts of energy involved are all available in the open
literature - that is where I found them, some thirty years ago, and
I'm sure that they are still available now.
-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John
John Michael Williams
Reply With Quote