|
Cecil Moore wrote in message ...
John Michael Williams wrote: I share this skepticism. Burning TNT probably would produce 10x more free energy than detonating it. When you detonate it, what happens to the 90% lost energy? Fails to actually detonate? Based on recent postings, my "10x" might be too high, but what would happen is that the uncombusted atoms of the TNT would be just accelerated away by the shock of detonation. Eventually, they might be combusted, but not as part of the detonation. So, their combustion energy contribution isn't counted as part of the explosion. John John Michael Williams |
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... DarkMatter wrote: First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable. If one arranged the TNT into a fuse, how fast would it burn? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp Don't know about strings of TNT but I just checked on primacord and it detonates along it's length at greater than 6000 feet per second. HWB |
In article , DarkMatter wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:50:00 -0600, Cecil Moore Gave us: John Michael Williams wrote: I share this skepticism. Burning TNT probably would produce 10x more free energy than detonating it. When you detonate it, what happens to the 90% lost energy? Fails to actually detonate? First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable. That guy's empty skull cavity has a lot of free space in it. I know that TNT does not detonate easily. It may burn rather fast like nitrocellulose or moderately like the stuff they make road flares with if you just ignite it. Some other high explosives are also capable of burning at moderate rates. I have heard of C4 being somewhat usable as a fuel to heat food with, easy to get burning without detonating. I remmber reading in an encyclopedia that nitroglycerin can burn with a quiet flame in a wick, but I would not try that one. They do mix a small amount of nitroglycerin with nitrocellulose in some "smokeless powders", and that others have just nitrocellulose. Since TNT does not contain enough oxygen in its nitro groups for complete combustion, burning it will get you some more energy than is released by a detonation of it. - Don Klipstein ) |
In article , John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Klipstein wrote (in ) about 'CB Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Tue, 23 Mar 2004: That one is up there, but let's check heat of formation... HF gas: 63.991 KCal/mole, 3.19955 KCal/gram MgO: 145.76 KCal/mole, 3.644 KCal/gram, but with no gaseous output. Do you have the figures for CsF? No I don't. I expect it to be more per mole and less per gram than HF. I do have a figure for RbF, 133.31 KCal/mole, 1.276 KCal/gram. But another one that ranks high per gram is Al2O3. That one gets 389..49 KCal per mole, 3.818 KCal per gram, and 2.45% more if you get it to be corundum crystal rather than amorphous powder. B2O3 gets 279.81 KCal per mole, 3.886 KCal per gram. I think BeO is also up there, probably even more per gram, but I do not have that figure. I suspect it is the champ in energy per gram of reactants, and misremembered by one element in the same column since MgO is not the champ after all. DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME.(;-) - Don Klipstein ) |
"noname" wrote:
"Nico Coesel" wrote in message ... I'm pretty sure that it won't work that simple. There are other factors at play that make controlling things with a telephone a lot harder to achieve than you think... For everyone's safety I'm not going into the details. You could, only there are no details. piezoelectric one, since with a piezo the circuit would differ slightly. A reed relay could do the switching. Using an NPN, the circuit would look like this: Negative ground, connected with ringer's "-", to battery "-" and through a forward-biased shottky to the emitter. The transistor's base connected through a 2K2 resistor to battery "+". Base also connected to diode "+", while diode "-" is connected to ringer "+". Collector through relay coil to battery "+", a capacitor across the relay coil. That's it. The relay contacts can be used to switch on a lamp, connected to the same battery and placed so that the hearing-impaired person can easily see it. Note to hearing-impaired preople: this circuit may not always work, it depends on the type of ringer and on the volume setting. I did not test it with any ringers either, but I think many old-style ones should do. Way too complicated and it still doesn't work reliably. I've used electronic kitchen timers -which basically have the same circuitry- in numerous devices (Eprom erasers, etching tanks, UV exposure units, etc, etc) but this method is too unreliable for anything that needs a 100% predictive trigger. -- Reply to nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) Bedrijven en winkels vindt U op www.adresboekje.nl |
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:08:06 -0000, (Dave Platt)
wrote: It appears that burning is also a viable method of destroying TNT. http://www.humanitarian-demining.org...tral/remic.asp describes a method for destroying land mines "in situ" via burning. It's a neat trick - a small shaped charge of explosive creates a high-velocity gas jet which breaks open the (TNT-loaded) land mine, and also delivers a charge of a pyrogenic chemical which ignites and burns the TNT without detonating it. Yep I have seen a documentary on TV where the cut open old WW2 bombs (UK ones), and then simply burned the stuff in it. That is how they get rid of the old bombs. JP |
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:43:01 GMT, "Ken Fowler"
wrote: While the thread might be interesting to some readers, and granted that the original topic had something to do with arcing associated with antennas, the discussion of explosives is very off-topic for rec.radio.amateur.antenna. Only because you do not use enough output power :-) |
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... In article , John Woodgate wrote: I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Klipstein wrote (in ) about 'CB Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Tue, 23 Mar 2004: That one is up there, but let's check heat of formation... HF gas: 63.991 KCal/mole, 3.19955 KCal/gram MgO: 145.76 KCal/mole, 3.644 KCal/gram, but with no gaseous output. Do you have the figures for CsF? No I don't. I expect it to be more per mole and less per gram than HF. I do have a figure for RbF, 133.31 KCal/mole, 1.276 KCal/gram. But another one that ranks high per gram is Al2O3. That one gets 389..49 KCal per mole, 3.818 KCal per gram, and 2.45% more if you get it to be corundum crystal rather than amorphous powder. B2O3 gets 279.81 KCal per mole, 3.886 KCal per gram. I think BeO is also up there, probably even more per gram, but I do not have that figure. I suspect it is the champ in energy per gram of reactants, and misremembered by one element in the same column since MgO is not the champ after all. I suspect the champ is something like a mix of liquid ozone with liquid acetylene. Try it and report back. -- Dirk The Consensus:- The political party for the new millennium http://www.theconsensus.org |
(John Michael Williams) wrote in message . com...
(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. Detonating or burning TNT won't produce any significant amount of nitrogen dioxide - the oxygen originally bonded to the nitrogen will end up bonded to the hydrogen (as water) and the carbon (as carbon monoxide). That is what the nitrate groups are there for. 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. It is pretty well defined. The hydrogen-oxygen bond is stronger than the carbon oxygen bond, so all the hydrogen is going to end up as water, and the rest of the oxygen will be taken up as carbon dioxide. The energy released by these reactions can be worked out pretty exactly - the National Bureau of Standards publishes table of "enthalpies" for loads of chemical compounds. You have to fine-tune the published data to account for the temperature and physical states of the reactants before and after the reaction, but this is strictly detail work. The procedures involved in making the calculations were covered in the thermodynamics course I did in second year chemistry back in 1961. As far as I know, all chemistry and physics graduates have to do such a course. I think, if detonation in air also entailed complete combustion, then detonation would produce the same energy as would direct combustion. Detonation can't entail complete combustion - at least not for TNT, where the three nitro-groups don't provide enough oxygen - in the ratio 6 : 16.5 - for complete combustion, and atmospheric oxygen can't diffuse into the fire-ball anything like fast enough to make up the deficit. As Don Klipstein has pointed out, nitroglycerin and PETN (penta erithytol nitrate IIRR) do contain enough nitro-groups to allow more or less complete combustion during detonation. 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? It is "just" the creation of one covalent bond, from a situation where there was no covalent bond. Most chemical reactions involve exchanging one covalent bond for another - stronger - covalent bond. The noble gases - helium, neon, argon, xenon, radon - are the only elements that don't form strong covalent bonds. You've got to heat most elements to astronomic temperatures before you see appreciable populations of single atoms. 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 |
"Dirk Bruere at Neopax" wrote in message ...
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... In article , John Woodgate wrote: I read in sci.electronics.design that Don Klipstein wrote (in ) about 'CB Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Tue, 23 Mar 2004: That one is up there, but let's check heat of formation... HF gas: 63.991 KCal/mole, 3.19955 KCal/gram MgO: 145.76 KCal/mole, 3.644 KCal/gram, but with no gaseous output. Do you have the figures for CsF? No I don't. I expect it to be more per mole and less per gram than HF. I do have a figure for RbF, 133.31 KCal/mole, 1.276 KCal/gram. But another one that ranks high per gram is Al2O3. That one gets 389..49 KCal per mole, 3.818 KCal per gram, and 2.45% more if you get it to be corundum crystal rather than amorphous powder. B2O3 gets 279.81 KCal per mole, 3.886 KCal per gram. I think BeO is also up there, probably even more per gram, but I do not have that figure. I suspect it is the champ in energy per gram of reactants, and misremembered by one element in the same column since MgO is not the champ after all. I suspect the champ is something like a mix of liquid ozone with liquid acetylene. Try it and report back. Not an experiment I'd recommend. Acetylene is thermally unstable, and cylinders of compressed acetylene contain kieselguhr http://www.nobel.se/nobel/alfred-nob...ieselguhr.html for exactly the same reason that nitroglycerine is only commercially available adsorbed onto kieselguhr. Ozone is is also thermally unstable, and I don't think that it is commercially available at all (with or without kieselguhr). Mixing liquid acetylene and liquid ozone could produce a very loud report - a mixture of charcoal and liquid oxygen used to be used as a commercial explosive. Pure hydrogen peroxide is another nasty liquid - the British, and more recently, the Russians have had cause to regret using it as a torpedo fuel. ------ Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |
I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman
wrote (in ) about 'CB Radios, Cellphones and Gasoline Vapor Ignition', on Wed, 24 Mar 2004: Not an experiment I'd recommend. Acetylene is thermally unstable, and cylinders of compressed acetylene contain kieselguhr http://www.nobel.se/nobel/alfred-nob...kieselguhr.htm l for exactly the same reason that nitroglycerine is only commercially available adsorbed onto kieselguhr. Ozone is is also thermally unstable, and I don't think that it is commercially available at all (with or without kieselguhr). There have always been macho physicists and chemists who wanted to push the envelope of risky experiments; Moissan, for example, who made diamonds (not very good ones) by quenching white-hot hollow iron ingots with carbon inside. Who was it who first produced titanium metal from the oxide with the aid of potassium vapour? Ozone has certainly been liquefied: it is a very deep blue, almost black. Acetylene can't be liquefied at atmospheric pressu the solid sublimes (turns to gas) at -84 C. Mixing liquid acetylene and liquid ozone could produce a very loud report - Particularly as it would have to be done in a pressure vessel! a mixture of charcoal and liquid oxygen used to be used as a commercial explosive. Pure hydrogen peroxide is another nasty liquid - the British, and more recently, the Russians have had cause to regret using it as a torpedo fuel. Was the British torpedo fuel *pure* H2O2? It would seem at first sight unnecessary. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
"Bill Sloman" wrote in message m... Mixing liquid acetylene and liquid ozone could produce a very loud report - a mixture of charcoal and liquid oxygen used to be used as a commercial explosive. I remember the lox-barbecue page (which unfortunately seems to have been taken down) warned against soaking the charcoal briquets in the liquid oxygen. "The people in charge have requested this web site be removed" |
|
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:18:55 -0800, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Unil the terrorists get nukes, then there will be no Jerusalem. It is as predictable as a TTL timer, only one outcome possible. It is probably far to late for Israel to change that outcome. Jerusalem is probably the only city in the region that _isn't_ a potential nuke target. Too many sites sacred to both sides. |
Terry Given wrote:
Why do you feel it necessary to abuse everyone with whom you disagree? For exactly the same reason the posts are anonymous? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
NOTICE: After reading an "off-topic" complaint from one of the antenna
guys, I started replying with rec.radio.amateur.antenna deleted from the Send To list. This doesn't work if you bookmark this thread: Google recovers the bookmark by FIRST group in a list; thus, you don't see posts with the first group missing unless you search in one of the other groups. Worse, even if you search and read under one of the other groups, if you bookmark there, you get the thread under antenna, with other postings in the thread missing. Sorry, antenna guy, I tried, but I want to be sure this one gets seen. Bruce in Alaska wrote in message ... In article , (John Michael Williams) wrote: but what would happen is that the uncombusted atoms of the TNT would be just accelerated away by the shock of detonation. Eventually, they might be combusted, but not as part of the detonation. So, their combustion energy contribution isn't counted as part of the explosion. The above is just plain NONSENSE. You are exaggerating. When TNT Detonates, it is the detonation wave front that causes the cyclic ring of tolulene to break and release the bonding energy of the molecule. The detonation wave front is traveling faster than the the molecules can move on their own, so they don't move, they just get slammed by the detonation wave. OK. Maybe here you are not exaggerating. Detonation creates a SHOCK, not a "wave"; a wave is a cyclic vibration at or below the speed of sound (disregarding electromagnetic waves). A detonation is an aerodynamic (or, if you prefer, hydrodynamic) process, not a "wave", and it exceeds the speed of sound. Typical shock speeds for a solid high explosive are over 9 km/s, whereas the speed of sound in the fastest solid (e. g., carbonate rock) is below 7 km/s. In a typical solid high explosive, sound speed would be under 3 km/s. In nitroglycerine, it would be under 2 km/s. Your criticism doesn't make sense to me: If there is a SHOCK (I assume you are referring to bonding electrons?) it will transfer momentum to atoms in its path, and each in just one direction, depending on the location of the first energy-yielding bond. Each atom will be accelerated in one direction (ignoring subsequent collisions). I agree the shock will progress faster than the atoms, but the atoms will be accelerated. What are these atoms? They are the atoms, or if you prefer, small molecules, NOT combusted as well as others not detonated, and some previously detonated. They will move in all directions away from their original locations. The heat liberated by the detonation reaction, if nothing else, will have accelerated them to high speeds. If you think about it, that's what I wrote above. There is a GIANT difference between combustion and detonation. TNT does NOT combust when it decomposes in a detonation. Bruce in alaska I didn't say anything inconsistent with that, did I? John John Michael Williams |
I read in sci.electronics.design that maxfoo maxfooHeadFromButt@punkass
..com wrote (in ) about 'Cellphones and Bombs', on Wed, 24 Mar 2004: a dirty nuke wouldn't physically damage any sacred sites. just contaminate the area for thousands of years so no one could live there. Sounds like a possible solution, maybe extended to all the disputed territories. As long as they were evacuated before the event. If no-one can live there, no-one can encroach on others' areas. Not meant seriously. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
"Richard Henry" wrote in message news:Fnh8c.1267$Q45.417@fed1read02... I remember the lox-barbecue page (which unfortunately seems to have been taken down) warned against soaking the charcoal briquets in the liquid oxygen. "The people in charge have requested this web site be removed" That's a shame - I thought it was a good example of there still being a sense of adventure out there. regards Ian ;-) |
Bruce in Alaska wrote in message ...
In article , (John Michael Williams) wrote: but what would happen is that the uncombusted atoms of the TNT would be just accelerated away by the shock of detonation. Eventually, they might be combusted, but not as part of the detonation. So, their combustion energy contribution isn't counted as part of the explosion. The above is just plain NONSENSE. Not true. When TNT Detonates, it is the detonation wave front that causes the cyclic ring of tolulene to break and release the bonding energy of the molecule. It isn't the "detonation wave front" that disrupts the tri-nitrotoluene molecule, but the local heating. The detonation wave front is just another consequence of the local heating. The detonation wave front is traveling faster than the the molecules can move on their own, so they don't move, they just get slammed by the detonation wave. They actually get heated by the heat radiated from the ignition point (which travels at the speed of light), as well as by the impact of the molecules heated up at the initial ignition point. The detonation wave front is a "supersonic shock wave" which is to say it is moving exactly as fast as molecules can move on their own, because it consists of the energetic molecules produced by the rearrangement of tri-nitrotoluene into water, carbon monoxide, carbon and nitrogen. There is a GIANT difference between combustion and detonation. TNT does NOT combust when it decomposes in a detonation. There certainly is a giant difference between combustion and detonation. The carbon monoxide and the carbon particles produced by a detonation may well react with atmospheric oxygen after the detonation, but this is a much slower process and doesn't add much to the damage produced by the initial blast. ------ Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |
good explanation bruce !
one of the reasons TNT became the product of choice over other explosives such as nitro. Easy to transport and very stable http://mooni.fccj.org/~ethall/explode/explode.htm Trinitrotoluene is a high explosive that is unaffected by ordinary shocks and therefore must be set off by a detonator. TNT is often mixed with other explosives such as ammonium nitrate to form amatol. Because it is insensitive to shock and must be exploded with a detonator, it is the most favored explosive used in munitions and construction. Why do nitro groups (NO2) lead to unstable compounds? Nitrogen has charge of +1 and nitro group have a strong tendency to withdraw (pull) electrons from other parts of the compound. Attaching three nitro groups to a compound leads to an extremely unstable situation. markus Bruce in Alaska wrote: In article , (John Michael Williams) wrote: but what would happen is that the uncombusted atoms of the TNT would be just accelerated away by the shock of detonation. Eventually, they might be combusted, but not as part of the detonation. So, their combustion energy contribution isn't counted as part of the explosion. The above is just plain NONSENSE. When TNT Detonates, it is the detonation wave front that causes the cyclic ring of tolulene to break and release the bonding energy of the molecule. The detonation wave front is traveling faster than the the molecules can move on their own, so they don't move, they just get slammed by the detonation wave. There is a GIANT difference between combustion and detonation. TNT does NOT combust when it decomposes in a detonation. Bruce in alaska -- add a 2 before @ |
"DarkMatter" wrote in message
... On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:50:00 -0600, Cecil Moore Gave us: John Michael Williams wrote: I share this skepticism. Burning TNT probably would produce 10x more free energy than detonating it. When you detonate it, what happens to the 90% lost energy? Fails to actually detonate? First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable. That guy's empty skull cavity has a lot of free space in it. Why do you feel it necessary to abuse everyone with whom you disagree? especially as the half-dozen or so posts below clearly indicate that you are WRONG. |
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:28:58 -0000, "Ian Buckner"
wrote: "Richard Henry" wrote in message news:Fnh8c.1267$Q45.417@fed1read02... I remember the lox-barbecue page (which unfortunately seems to have been taken down) warned against soaking the charcoal briquets in the liquid oxygen. "The people in charge have requested this web site be removed" That's a shame - I thought it was a good example of there still being a sense of adventure out there. People concerned with being sued. This rated highly on the "don't try this at home" scale. Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear) ------------------------------------------------ at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom |
in article , Cecil Moore at
wrote on 3/23/04 10:15: DarkMatter wrote: First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable. If one arranged the TNT into a fuse, how fast would it burn? Depends on whether you ignite it (Zippo, etc.) -moderate speed for a fuse- or detonate it (initiator, blasting cap, etc.) -very fast... think primacord. HTH Dave Cole |
maxfoo wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:29:28 -0600, "Stephen J. Rush" wrote: On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:18:55 -0800, Jan Panteltje wrote: Unil the terrorists get nukes, then there will be no Jerusalem. It is as predictable as a TTL timer, only one outcome possible. It is probably far to late for Israel to change that outcome. Jerusalem is probably the only city in the region that _isn't_ a potential nuke target. Too many sites sacred to both sides. a dirty nuke wouldn't physically damage any sacred sites. just contaminate the area for thousands of years so no one could live there. -------------------- But everyone knows that if Jerusalem goes, Mecca, Medina, Teheran, Islamabad and a half dozen other Moslem cities get nuked. This from the insiders in Israeli physics I have known when I was married into a Jewish family for 20 years. -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
DarkMatter wrote:
Dave Cole wrote: wrote: DarkMatter wrote: First, tell me how one "burns TNT". It is a high explosive. I think its "burn rate" would be pretty fast, and not manageable. If one arranged the TNT into a fuse, how fast would it burn? Depends on whether you ignite it (Zippo, etc.) -moderate speed for a fuse- or detonate it (initiator, blasting cap, etc.) -very fast... think primacord. HTH Dave Cole Learn how to quote properly. I did not ask this question. Since my heading is identified by '' any quote with '' is mine. Your heading is identified by '' so your quotes use ''. Everything above *is* quoted properly. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
On a sunny day (Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:40:02 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
wrote in : But everyone knows that if Jerusalem goes, Mecca, Medina, Teheran, Islamabad and a half dozen other Moslem cities get nuked. When I look at hthis statement closer, you see that now we have lost Baghdad, and if teh US 'frees' ahum more Islam countries z(say keeps pushing Iran, the currwent CIA operations in Siria, everytime the balance for a Israeli targets for a 'strike back' decreases. Lowwer threshold. People who have nothing to lose do NOT go by any rules. IMO Bush Jr want, before he leaves offcide, a worldwide fire started. This to help his weaopon producing friends. Same as Vietnam was for no reason at all.... So he may light middle east, China Taiwan, or both, or something else. Here is a mirror for the US. Its ugly. But on the other hand, humanity has always been that way. The beauty in it is it makes the species strong, PROVIDED there are survivers. But it would be more beautiful if people could live in peace. We do have, as humans, a brain that alows us to view the world from the others perspective. Maybe we should put energy into making people use that part. JP |
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:40:02 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz" wrote in : But everyone knows that if Jerusalem goes, Mecca, Medina, Teheran, Islamabad and a half dozen other Moslem cities get nuked. When I look at hthis statement closer, you see that now we have lost Baghdad, and if teh US 'frees' ahum more Islam countries z(say keeps pushing Iran, the currwent CIA operations in Siria, everytime the balance for a Israeli targets for a 'strike back' decreases. Lowwer threshold. People who have nothing to lose do NOT go by any rules. ------------------------ Their lives are still important to most of them, the number who become suicidal over political causes is actually rather small. If we simply blew the **** out of whatever family home and neighborhood that the latest suicide bomber came from, these attacks would stop. Most of the allure to brainwashing kids to carry bombs is lost when their folks contemplate retaliation directly upon their own head. The Russians have learned how to deal with Arabs, ask them! Promising and then carrying out the napalming of errant neighborhoods without any apology whatsoever would end this in nothing flat. There's absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with genocide if it is not intended as such, as with the Nazi's, but incidental to the purpose, as with Eisenhower. Always make it strictly conditional, if you do this, we will do more of that, and we will always escalate ten-fold and upon civilians!!! A people is utterly responsible for those who lead and represent them and how they do so, even down to their very children! IMO Bush Jr want, before he leaves offcide, a worldwide fire started. This to help his weaopon producing friends. Same as Vietnam was for no reason at all.... So he may light middle east, China Taiwan, or both, or something else. Here is a mirror for the US. Its ugly. -------------- Agreed, Bush at alia, but there are many others who know better, which was how Vietnam stopped. On the other hand, we need weapons, we simply need to use them a bit differently. But on the other hand, humanity has always been that way. The beauty in it is it makes the species strong, PROVIDED there are survivers. ---------------- Nawh, I don't buy it, our nature depends far more on culture now than genetics. It doesn't matter whether a suicide bomber is a congenital idiot. But it would be more beautiful if people could live in peace. We do have, as humans, a brain that alows us to view the world from the others perspective. Maybe we should put energy into making people use that part. JP -------------------------- It requires, firstly, that we either do away with, or terrify any who would breach the peace of the world. That requires an ugly but actually very civilized demeanor, one that will not tolerate disorder and will not bother apologizing to anyone. People are not perfected by appealing to them, they are perfected by their neighbors not tolerating their deviant abusive bull**** anymore. When they finally always get it worse than they give, they ****ing stop, and not until! -Steve -- -Steve Walz ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public |
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Jan Panteltje wrote: On a sunny day (Sat, 27 Mar 2004 06:40:02 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz" wrote in : But everyone knows that if Jerusalem goes, Mecca, Medina, Teheran, Islamabad and a half dozen other Moslem cities get nuked. When I look at hthis statement closer, you see that now we have lost Baghdad, and if teh US 'frees' ahum more Islam countries z(say keeps pushing Iran, the currwent CIA operations in Siria, everytime the balance for a Israeli targets for a 'strike back' decreases. Lowwer threshold. People who have nothing to lose do NOT go by any rules. ------------------------ Their lives are still important to most of them, the number who become suicidal over political causes is actually rather small. If we simply blew the **** out of whatever family home and neighborhood that the latest suicide bomber came from, these attacks would stop. Like the Palestinian attacks stopped after the Israelis started doing what you suggest? __ Steve KI5YG .. |
Jeff Liebermann wrote in message . ..
On 20 Mar 2004 23:28:38 -0800, (John Michael Williams) wrote: Ships around the turn of the 20th century transmitted morse code by spark, I think. The Lusitania, Mauritania, Titanic, and Olypic all ran on coal. No gasoline in sight. Later vessels ran on bunker C fuel oil, which is more like tar than gasoline. I don't think one has to worry about sparks on such a vessel unless it's finely devided coal dust, which finished off the Lusitania in a secondary explosion after the torpedo. Interesting idea. I would have thought that a tube would require more V than a neon lamp to get started. I'll try it if I can find a lamp. Neon lamp needs about 60 volts to light and 40 volts to stay lit. The 4 watt flourescent tube wants at least 90 volts to start, and I think (i.e. guess) about 50 volts to stay lit. What you seem to be suggesting is that I simply connect the lamp to the 1/4 wave receiving antenna, right? Why introduce my hand? For ground on the other lamp contact? Yep. You're the ground. You should be fine with a 5 watt CB and a 1/4 wave whip. The high voltage point is near the tip. However, don't try it with an illegal CB linear. You'll get an RF burn for your troubles. Incidentally, there are cell phone antennas with lights in them. http://cellphones-accessories.com/12stobligcel.html They're LED's which require much less power to light than a 4 watt flourescent bulb. Still, it's kinda interesting. I don't see the point of attaching a long wire to the CB, because they don't come with long bare wires. Clearly, I could get a good spark by attaching a wire to the CB batteries, and avoid all the RF stuff! Exactly. Same with an open relay contact or toggle switch. However, don't foget that you need containment to create an explosion. Sparking the DC inside the trunk is the mostly likely location. 22 V is a lot more than I could get with a 1 m monopole: I only got 100 mV peak to peak. The 22 volts peak is at the RF connector. I'm assuming that if there is a spark gap, it will be in the coax cable or associated antenna connectors. ... I finally got hold of a 4 W fluorescent lamp (Coleman 12V lantern replacement; H-F4T5D(3)). I attached a 2.7 m bare copper wire to one end of it and tried holding the other end in my hand while keying on Channel 40. No obvious effect. John John Michael Williams |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com