His science seems a little off. You can't really compare the size of a TNT fireball to that of a chemical explosion. TNT burns very quickly and you would need considerable amounts to create a lasting fireball. On the other hand, chemicals like gasoline will burn slower and expand over a greater area.
Consider that with a quarter stick of dynamite and a can of gas you can produce a fairly sizable explosion with considerably less of a shockwave.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Slwug2Mcgk[/media]
Besides, 300 tons of TNT seems entirely too high, especially considering the military used 500 tons to simulate the effects of a nuclear blast. 300 tons would have leveled buildings. The blast pressure of the Tianjin explosion definitely looks closer to the 21 ton estimate when looking at other footage.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfXmG3GdAig[/media]
[QUOTE=The Vman;48456173]
Consider that with a quarter stick of dynamite and a can of gas you can produce a fairly sizable explosion with considerably less of a shockwave.[/QUOTE]
Not to nit pick or anything but the whole "quarter stick of dynamite" thing is usually a reference to a kind of salute (aka a large firecracker) that resembles a stick of dynamite, but its not. And the thing is that these use flash powder which is considered a powerful "Low-explosive", meaning that instead of detonating it deflagrates, unlike TNT which is a "High-explosive" that can detonate.
So if I got it right he tried to measure the power of the explosion by the expansion of gasses?
That doesn't make any sense at all, if his calculations are correct he would indeed need 300 tons of TNT to explode to create a fireball that size, yet this has nothing to do with the power of the explosion. (since I doubt the explosion was pure TNT, if any)
He simply calculated how much TNT he has to ignite to create a volume of gas similar to the fireball estimate, this has nothing to do with the explosive strength of the Tianjin blast.
I wonder if the explosion would have looked smaller had it been daytime
I'll be honest I was expecting he'd say that the feminists did it
[QUOTE=Mrfantasticool;48456644]So if I got it right he tried to measure the power of the explosion by the expansion of gasses?
That doesn't make any sense at all, if his calculations are correct he would indeed need 300 tons of TNT to explode to create a fireball that size, yet this has nothing to do with the power of the explosion. (since I doubt the explosion was pure TNT, if any)
He simply calculated how much TNT he has to ignite to create a volume of gas similar to the fireball estimate, this has nothing to do with the explosive strength of the Tianjin blast.[/QUOTE]
It's just a frame of reference or estimate in more commonly-used terminology.
I don't think we know what the actual explosion was, but the point is that "[B]This much[/B] TNT would make an explosion that big, here's how you can calculate that too. I wonder what it really was."
[QUOTE=EcksDee;48458331]It's just a frame of reference or estimate in more commonly-used terminology.
I don't think we know what the actual explosion was, but the point is that "[B]This much[/B] TNT would make an explosion that big, here's how you can calculate that too. I wonder what it really was."[/QUOTE]
But the problem is that the amount of TNT that would be required to replicate the size of the fireball is a totally different number than the amount needed to replicate the shockwave. You can't measure the explosion's size by comparing it's fireball to a TNT fireball because it isn't TNT that exploded.
Just for comparison, Little Boy had a yield of 21,000 tons, and created a fireball 370 m in diameter.
Fireball sizes are the worst method you could use to estimate the yield of an explosion.
[QUOTE=CapellanCitizen;48457344]I'll be honest I was expecting he'd say that the feminists did it[/QUOTE]
Maybe there is a link. Both things are frequently triggered.
you'd think being such a high-profile festering cocksplaggon, thunderf00t would at least invest in like a cheap condenser mic or something
Who do I trust ? The scientist with a PhD in chemistry who was written multiple papers ( including a groundbreaking one ) or just a random person on the internet ?
[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;48463729]Who do I trust ? The scientist with a PhD in chemistry who was written multiple papers ( including a groundbreaking one ) or just a random person on the internet ?[/QUOTE]
His research focus is chemistry, not physics or engineering. It's a bit like trusting a gynaecologist to do open heart surgery.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48464030]His research focus is chemistry, not physics or engineering. It's a bit like trusting a gynaecologist to do open heart surgery.[/QUOTE]
And yet he has more credibility then everyone here. Besides, his field ARE NUCLEAR physics, physics and chemistry.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48464030]His research focus is chemistry, not physics or engineering. It's a bit like trusting a gynaecologist to do open heart surgery.[/QUOTE]
I don't really understand much of this but is anybody here a physicist or engineer? Also, wasn't this a chemical explosion and don't you have to learn a ton of physics to become a chemist anyways?
Like I wouldn't be surprised if the PRC just straight up lied about the size of the blast. They seem to be doing quite a bit of censoring and silencing.
[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;48471610]And yet he has more credibility then everyone here. Besides, his field ARE NUCLEAR physics, physics and chemistry.[/QUOTE]
Really? All the papers I've seen from him are in the areas of biochemistry and molecular dynamics.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
