4 ms·
I'm surprised that this is being compared to TNT. I was (naively, maybe) under the assumption that weapons moved away from TNT already since long time - to HMX
by gruturo 8y ago
I'm surprised that this is being compared to TNT. I was (naively, maybe) under the assumption that weapons moved away from TNT already since long time - to HMX and RDX, mostly, which should be already 50-60 years old.
Also - at 8.18km/s detonation velocity, this thing isn't even so exciting.
Hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane has much better performance, higher density, a cooler name :-), seems to be reasonably practical to produce/handle (at least as far as high explosives go), and is a fantastic excuse to link to Derek Lowe's eminently enjoyable "Things I won't work with" articles: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2011/11/11/things_i_wont_work_with_hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2011/11/11/thi...
- dfsegoat 8y agoHave you looked at what environmental impact a TNT / HMX plant has? Lots of environmental contaminants. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has declared TNT a pollutant whose removal is priority. ... This seems like a much safer organic compound.
- Merad 8y agoThis is mentioned in TFA: > It's also not that explosive, owing to the fact that TNT doesn't have enough oxidizer to burn all its carbon and hydrogen fuel, which is why you see a black cloud of mostly carbon after TNT is detonated. So TNT is generally mixed with other chemicals, such as RDX to form an explosive mixture called Composition B that is found in many bombs.
- gruturo 8y agoYep, got that part. I'm just amazed that TNT, a compound dating back to 1863 (just googled it) is in active use 155 years later. Of course it works well enough, but I'd imagine the military to go for the absolute most bang for the buck (pun absolutely intended) and am surprised it ha[sd]n't happened yet.