5 ms·

Direct link to Randall's comment: http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-to-bag-check-cartoon.html?showComment=1256333115980#c9173728821851325302 http://www.t

• lbrandy 17y ago
  Randall's comment is simultaneously correct and misleading on a particular point. A laptop battery may have quite a bit of energy density, but that's not entirely relevant, as he points out in the next sentence. The speed at which the energy is released is far, far more important. I provided that remark just so I could repeat this awesome factoid: a stick of butter has more energy than a stick of dynamite.
  • ars 17y ago
    Bring potassium chlorate (an oxidizer), and a strong jar with you and you could probably make the butter explode (although not detonate). With a little work you could turn the butter into a fuel-air bomb. A flour bomb would probably be even easier.
  • camccann 17y ago
    A laptop battery may have quite a bit of energy density, but that's not entirely relevant, as he points out in the next sentence. The speed at which the energy is released is far, far more important. Remember all those news stories a few years back about Dell laptops bursting violently into flames?
    • electromagnetic 17y ago
      Assuming you could sneak a supercap onto a plane (roughly 30Wh/kg), using the maximum of your carry-on-weight and not exceeding it (usually ~10kg), you can easily have an energy potential equivalent to ~1/2 a stick of dynamite. How much you'll get out in the form of explosive force is debatable, but is certainly to be an order of magnitude above a battery as the discharge rates are several orders of magnitude faster. However, the expected explosive force of home made liquid explosives is only on the scale of a stick of dynamite, it's certainly less obvious though. Both explosions randomly placed are unlikely to down a plane, and are likely to be better used breaking into the cockpit than actually downing the plane. I believe almost a 1/3 KWh high voltage power source could be of much more use than in its explosive force for an organised terrorist attack. However, most anti-terrorism procedures aren't designed to prevent organised terrorists, they're designed to prevent the many more morons with access to explosives.
• lliiffee 17y ago
  His asks if the TSA ever tests if confiscated liquids are actually explosives. This is a brilliant question! If there is no cost to trying to sneak in liquid explosives (unlike, say, a gun), terrorists can easily try again and again until they succeed, and the ban really is very pointless.
  • tptacek 17y ago
    You think a 1/10000 chance of arrest is going to deter a suicide bomber?
    • lliiffee 17y ago
      Let's make the math a little more favorable. If the TSA caught 99% of liquids people try to bring through and then randomly tested 5% of them, the terrorist faces a 1% chance of success in each attempt, and a 4.95% chance of arrest. Assuming they repeat upon the most likely (liquids confiscate and not tested) outcome, they face an overall 16.81% probability of eventually getting the liquids through, and a 83.19% probability of arrest. Now, a 16.81% failure rate ain't great (and my assumptions are probably favorable), but that's why we need a layered security system. On the other hand, if the TSA tests 0% of the liquids, the probability of eventual success jumps to 100%...
      • tptacek 17y ago
        To test 5% of confiscated liquids, the TSA would have to detain tens of thousands of passengers.
        • lliiffee 17y ago
          Good thing for me I wasn't arguing that the TSA was actually testing the liquids and thus not wasting everyone's time! Edit: on the other hand, I'm not sure it's so infeasible... If 5% of passengers have liquids, and 5% of those get checked, that still seems like a smaller fraction of people than those that get extra security already. Simply having agents open the bottles and smell them (this actually happened to me in china!) would be somewhat effective...
• aroon 17y ago
  and the response to Randall: http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-to-bag-check-cartoon.html?showComment=1256671379049#c2517530913519798024 http://www.tsa.gov/blog/2009/10/response-to-bag-check-cartoo...
  • pmorici 17y ago
    Both this and the above link are giving 404 errors? I think the TSA is censoring the comment posts. Typical.
    • rms 17y ago
      You can search for "Randall" on the page to find Randall's comment and TSA's response.
    • viraptor 17y ago
      1. Remove tinfoil hat 2. Use ctrl+f
      • pmorici 17y ago
        Don't be silly. Everyone knows you need a fully body suit of aluminum.