4 ms·

It's hard to imagine, but that would mean this explosion was nearly 3.5x larger than 2015 Tianjin[1] which was 800 tonnes of ammonium nitrate (336 tons TNT equi

It's hard to imagine, but that would mean this explosion was nearly 3.5x larger than 2015 Tianjin[1] which was 800 tonnes of ammonium nitrate (336 tons TNT equivalent). The video[2] from Tianjin looked way bigger and apocalyptic, but perhaps just because of the the fireball. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Tianjin_explosions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Tianjin_explosions [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONsmJAyFAAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONsmJAyFAAw

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
Yeah, honestly, the Beirut explosion looked bigger/scarier to me, like how they show nuclear explosions in the movies. The Tianjin explosion was an enormous fireball but didn't seem to have the same magnitude of shockwave from the videos I've seen of it.
- actuator 6y ago
  From the videos I have seen the Tianjin fireball seemed to rage even for a longer duration. In the Beirut one maybe because of daylight, fire is not visible after the big blast. I wonder what would cause that difference, the Beirut one supposedly had more material as well.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    Longer fire = less energy for explosion?
    - grogenaut 6y ago
      High explosives burn too fast for regular flames and suck the oxygen out for subsequent burning. Though you can definitely see fire in the first few frames. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Adair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Adair got famous for putting out oil well fires with high explosives. Explosives on burn that fast due to their chemical structure not because of free oxygen in the atmosphere. So if you see a fireball, the explosion has slowed way down. People are used to huge fireballs in movies because they just aerosolize gasoline or others for that effect. Also it's a lot safer than high explosives. High explosives are dangerous. An goes at around 10,000 feet/second or 6,800mph or 10,900 kmh. In those videos when the white large cloud comes out (likely some form of the air being hyper compressed by the shockwave and forced faster than the speed of sound) I was like drop Camera get behind wall nooooooowwww. Or we'll keep camera it may be useful in about 45 minutes.
      - jabl 6y ago
        > In those videos when the white large cloud comes out (likely some form of the air being hyper compressed by the shockwave and forced faster than the speed of sound) The white cloud is due to the shockwave causing moisture in the atmosphere to condense. Or rather immediately after the shockwave in the low pressure region. You can see the same effect sometimes due to supersonic aircraft.
        a_e_k 6y ago
        Also known as a Wilson cloud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_cloud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_cloud
      - raducu 6y ago
        But I think the guy did that, it just took him a couple of seconds to register. Remember, you knew it was an explosion before watching the video. I remember I got the same reaction, but I've watched the video multiple times, I think the first time I would have been as slow as the guy filming.
        grogenaut 6y ago
        I didn't say I would have gone any faster. My point was that I was actually in my head imagining dropping the phone and running away while I watched. I also didn't know it was going to be that big of an explosion. I've got plenty of memories of just not moving fast enough in an bad situation.
- qserasera 6y ago
  I don't think it was over a kiloton
- Nimitz14 6y ago
  It was at night, of course you don't see the shockwave lol. Tianjin was definitely bigger, Beirut has people surviving that were a couple hundred m away. That didn't happen in the former: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkDtMl5Ec7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkDtMl5Ec7k
fuzzfactor 6y ago
2000 tonnes is a lot. Two ships loading ammonium nitrate, the Grandcamp and the High Flyer, detonated in Texas City back in 1947. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster It says there was a 15 ft wave out into the Gulf of Mexico that lasted for almost 100 miles. And Texas City is not actually on the Gulf Coast, it is on Galveston Bay about a half hour away from the Gulf shore. And there is only a relatively narrow channel opening from the bay into the gulf. There are ton-sized pieces of shrapnel still in a few places across the town. I was stationed there in the early '80's when I was 20-something and everyone my age or older had parents & grandparents who had been through it, some surviving some not. Now it's been twice as many decades and it's not as present, elements of recovery come into reach that are not possible the first few years or decades.
- Someone 6y ago
  I would think that narrow channel prevented spreading of the energy of the wave, making it easier to get large waves in the Gulf of Mexico. Think of blowing out through a straw. The airflow at the end of the straw is a lot stronger than when the straw wouldn’t be there.
- goodcanadian 6y ago
  As long as we are bringing up historical explosions, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion in 1917.
  - Bud 6y ago
    Another useful recent explosion for comparison might be the Oklahoma City bombing by McVeigh, for which a bit over 2 tons of ammonium nitrate was used.
yxhuvud 6y ago
In Tianjin there was also 600 tonnes of Potassium Nitrate that exploded in addition to the ammonium nitrate, so to compare them you'd need to count that as well.
mekster 6y ago
Maybe what the report of Tianjin is manipulated to look smaller?

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

Yeah, honestly, the Beirut explosion looked bigger/scarier to me, like how they show nuclear explosions in the movies. The Tianjin explosion was an enormous fireball but didn't seem to have the same magnitude of shockwave from the videos I've seen of it.

actuator 6y ago
From the videos I have seen the Tianjin fireball seemed to rage even for a longer duration. In the Beirut one maybe because of daylight, fire is not visible after the big blast. I wonder what would cause that difference, the Beirut one supposedly had more material as well.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  Longer fire = less energy for explosion?
  - grogenaut 6y ago
    High explosives burn too fast for regular flames and suck the oxygen out for subsequent burning. Though you can definitely see fire in the first few frames. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Adair https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Adair got famous for putting out oil well fires with high explosives. Explosives on burn that fast due to their chemical structure not because of free oxygen in the atmosphere. So if you see a fireball, the explosion has slowed way down. People are used to huge fireballs in movies because they just aerosolize gasoline or others for that effect. Also it's a lot safer than high explosives. High explosives are dangerous. An goes at around 10,000 feet/second or 6,800mph or 10,900 kmh. In those videos when the white large cloud comes out (likely some form of the air being hyper compressed by the shockwave and forced faster than the speed of sound) I was like drop Camera get behind wall nooooooowwww. Or we'll keep camera it may be useful in about 45 minutes.
    - jabl 6y ago
      > In those videos when the white large cloud comes out (likely some form of the air being hyper compressed by the shockwave and forced faster than the speed of sound) The white cloud is due to the shockwave causing moisture in the atmosphere to condense. Or rather immediately after the shockwave in the low pressure region. You can see the same effect sometimes due to supersonic aircraft.
      - a_e_k 6y ago
        Also known as a Wilson cloud: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_cloud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_cloud
    - raducu 6y ago
      But I think the guy did that, it just took him a couple of seconds to register. Remember, you knew it was an explosion before watching the video. I remember I got the same reaction, but I've watched the video multiple times, I think the first time I would have been as slow as the guy filming.
      - grogenaut 6y ago
        I didn't say I would have gone any faster. My point was that I was actually in my head imagining dropping the phone and running away while I watched. I also didn't know it was going to be that big of an explosion. I've got plenty of memories of just not moving fast enough in an bad situation.
qserasera 6y ago
I don't think it was over a kiloton
Nimitz14 6y ago
It was at night, of course you don't see the shockwave lol. Tianjin was definitely bigger, Beirut has people surviving that were a couple hundred m away. That didn't happen in the former: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkDtMl5Ec7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkDtMl5Ec7k

fuzzfactor 6y ago

2000 tonnes is a lot. Two ships loading ammonium nitrate, the Grandcamp and the High Flyer, detonated in Texas City back in 1947. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster It says there was a 15 ft wave out into the Gulf of Mexico that lasted for almost 100 miles. And Texas City is not actually on the Gulf Coast, it is on Galveston Bay about a half hour away from the Gulf shore. And there is only a relatively narrow channel opening from the bay into the gulf. There are ton-sized pieces of shrapnel still in a few places across the town. I was stationed there in the early '80's when I was 20-something and everyone my age or older had parents & grandparents who had been through it, some surviving some not. Now it's been twice as many decades and it's not as present, elements of recovery come into reach that are not possible the first few years or decades.

Someone 6y ago
I would think that narrow channel prevented spreading of the energy of the wave, making it easier to get large waves in the Gulf of Mexico. Think of blowing out through a straw. The airflow at the end of the straw is a lot stronger than when the straw wouldn’t be there.
goodcanadian 6y ago
As long as we are bringing up historical explosions, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion in 1917.
- Bud 6y ago
  Another useful recent explosion for comparison might be the Oklahoma City bombing by McVeigh, for which a bit over 2 tons of ammonium nitrate was used.

yxhuvud 6y ago

In Tianjin there was also 600 tonnes of Potassium Nitrate that exploded in addition to the ammonium nitrate, so to compare them you'd need to count that as well.

mekster 6y ago

Maybe what the report of Tianjin is manipulated to look smaller?