Does Size Matter? | Explosive Shaped Charge Comparison
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- Explosive Shaped Charges are one of the most fascinating items we work with here at Ordnance Lab. Explosive shaped charges are very simple, yet are able to focus the incredible power of an explosion on a metal or composite liner, and send it traveling at blistering velocities to penetrate even the hardest of substances. The concept of an explosive shaped charge is simple, but the method of optimizing their performance is not so easy. Many factors go into play to make the explosive shaped charge get the maximum penetration possible. In this video, we do a simple study of the relationship of the explosive shaped charge liner diameter and it's stand-off distance to the target. We measure the penetration of difference stand-off distances to see what is the best distance from the shaped charge and the target.
Music
TeknoAXE - Revenge of the Atari Overlords
Download Music: teknoaxe.com/Link_Code_3.php?q... Listen to on Spotify: play.spotify.com/track/2f32pe...
Gaming Channel: ruclips.net/channel/UC3av...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/0Hyqsw... / teknoaxe
This track is Royalty Free and is free for anyone to use in RUclips videos or other projects, whether monetized or not.
www.reverbnation.com/teknoaxe
Far Far Away - Ferco [Audio Library Release]
Music provided by Audio Library Plus
Watch: • Far Far Away - Ferco |...
Free Download / Stream: alplus.io/far-far-away
Silent Partner - Real World
Music provided by Audio Library Plus
Silent Partner - Switch It Up
Music provided by Audio Library Plus
Chapters
00:00 - Introduction
02:12 - Explanation Of A Shaped Charge
04:22 - Zero Stand Off Shaped Charge First Attempt
05:08 - Zero Stand Off Shaped Charge Second Attempt
05:57 - 1x Liner Diameter Shaped Charge
06:35 - 2x Liner Diameter Shaped Charge
07:12 - 3x Liner Diameter Shaped Charge
08:09 - 4x Liner Diameter Shaped Charge
08:55 - Conclusion 
Развлечения
It's been a busy few months for us! We had to take care of some explosive business contracts that keep the lights on in the lab. If only we had a sugar daddy to fund our wild experiments without having to to pony up the sugar.
So what would our amazing audience like to see tested this year? Leave your suggestions in the comments and we will see if it is feasible.
Anything you guys do is great!
I'll fund an experiment!! Where is a good place to contact y'all?
Exploding cat butthole.
That’s a hard question honestly, any content you guys pump out is great. It’s awesome you guys are willing to take suggestions though. Maybe do a ballistic examination on bolts/nuts/screws vs 0.5mm bbs as shrapnel effect?
Copper thermite might be interesting to test.
You're probably right your main audience wouldn't be in for the science, but I'd love to see a second channel or something that does go over the calculus and physics! There's dozens of nerds like me on RUclips, dozens I say
Explosions and Fire's alternate channel Extractions and Ire is a good example that it could work!
I would love that too. I may not be super in love with math (I like physics though, and I am pretty good at math), but when we talk about something I like…I can sit there learning about it for hours without issue.
I would love to see an animation of how the heck a shaped charge works.
Such a weak container is able to "contain" that explosion and lens it downward... The prior wine bottle tests were what really made me want to see some animation of what is actually happening.
As of me writing. 3 dozen. Lol
Yes. Lol also, how big could you realistically go? It would be insane to see a mythbusters size sc, what's the math behind using a 1" thick copper liner bahaha
3:35- I mean, it it’s ever on the table I would absolutely watch a series on the derivation of shaped charge properties
As much as I love getting nerded out on topics, making such a video would drop engagement fast sadly.
@@jlambuthWhich is sad. People just want content, they don't want to understand anymore, they just want entertainment.
If you're really interested in seeing things blowing up like he said, you're just as well interested in understanding why, how, when, where, it blows up.
That's a fundamental thing in being an intelligent species. If all you care about are vibrant colours on a screen, you my friend, aren't better than monkeys who can watch funny videos on a screen play for hours. Wait, did I just sum up tiktok's industry, oh crap.
@@phobos1963 you basically did sum up tiktok and it's audience. Lol
The slowmo guys have a couple of recent vids on following shaped charges and penetrator forming. Abso-bloody-lutely fascinating in ultra slow motion.
@@jlambuth Going "full physics" probably would sink your stats, sadly. But it would be nice to see you guys float some test balloons - see _how much_ math and physics learning you can put in a video and still keep the audience on board. People may not have paid attention to it in school, but I also recall _very_ few explosions in science class. You've got some great, ahem, learning aids.
As a math, physics and calculus nerd and a priest of the temple of Ka-boom I absolutely would love an 8 hour video on the subject from the Arch Bishop of the temple of Ka-boom...
I need to make an arch-bishop for a video. LOL
When not too busy, perhaps put it on a second channel, say OrdnanceLabSci?
Second the motion. Would love to see the supporting math and physics.
@@samcclintic Well, looks like I need to do a video on the math and physics.
Look up shaped charges and SCAP CODE. It is very comprehensive
Have you considered that the reason so many of us find calculus and chemistry boring is that they're taught with bouncing balls and REDOX reactions that we frankly couldn't care less about?
I guarantee that if you taught high school boys chemistry and physics with fireworks and explosives, they'd pay more attention. ...of course, that assumes you want people to learn, not just follow instructions blindly.
You have a solid point.
This, the only part of high school chemistry I remember well, are the 2 pages of the textbook that discussed gunpowder, and the 15 minutes the teacher spent on the topic lol
@@OrdnanceLabWhat plastic material do you use in the 3D printer to make these shaped fillers?

@@robertsmith4681The best part of high school chemistry was when the teacher took a piece of sodium and threw it out the window into a puddle of water. It skated on the water for a short time and went BOOM. I can't imagine what the other classes in the building thought.
@@johncooper4637 I remember being somewhat underwhelmed by that demo, but mostly because it had been dramatically cut down. One previous year the teacher over did it and well, things got broken .... As a result the following years instead of getting the demo using a sizeable chunk in a 5 gallon bucket we ended up with a small bb sized pellet in like an inch thick glass bowl.
Anyone who believes that size does not matter has never played with explosives.
You know, that would make a great t-shirt.
@@OrdnanceLab You're using the wrong explosive, 6 km/s and 120 kbar of the PLX is barely enough to outrun the speed of sound in copper (5 km/s) not nearly enough to form a well working jet. You need to use 250 kbar, 8 km/s C4 to get anything like real shaped charge results.
@@nehorlavazapalkahow long have you had your explosive ordnance license?
@@DH-xw6jp BATFE has entered the comments. Alert!!!!!
it's not the size that matters it's how fast it goes off?
Now I wanna see some info on how the angle of the cone of the liner affects the results.
yes!
That is a solid idea. You got it.
That'd warrant testing angle and subtle variations on standoff (ie .8 1.0 and 1.3)
@@netWiz1 agreed
Yes, start rounded and proceed to more conical.
If by any chance you read this comment, know that all the explanations are welcome and provide great context to the boom boom stuff. It's what makes this channel special and I love it.
I am glad you enjoy that part!
since that chunk of metal is black if you take an IR drone out in the early night if its not completely buried it may hold enough residual heat to be spotted
This doesn't matter in situ, because 90% of the targets of shaped explosives are either armored doors or armored vehicles, so you either know the location by being in front of it, or by the enormous amount of IR produced by a 90L W8 engine
This could have worked the night of the first test (0 standoff), assuming the rain didn't mess up flight or cooling
@@phobos1963I believe the user means the zero- standoff test
He’ll find it if he ever cuts the grass.
Well obviously the blast was just right to somehow open up a portal that swallowed the steel slug. That's not enough to launch it anywhere especially since it was facing towards the ground. Something weird happened here.
I have been wanting to test liners of different density but getting approval to use high explosives is not something ive put my points into. If i made a few from aluminum, steel, gold ect. Would it be possible for you to test them?
Absolutely. Email Jake at jake@ordnance-lab.com and we can go from there.
You definitely need to collab with them and also reach out to ballistics highspeed to get it all in high quality ultra high speed framerate.
Yes! Cody's lab + high explosives???? Count me in!
In Finland , when I was serving military somewhere late 70ties, we had "kylkimiina KM 81 and KM 87, 87 had 1,6kg explosive and weight was some 3 kg, penetration for 87 was 30mm at 30m distance, bigbrother 81 had 12kg explosives an penetrate 100mm in 30m distance, quite badass weapons, to use on roadside. at that distance penetration was much more. They were non magnetic and cone was, I think some copper alloy.
LETS FUCKING GO
That fits with comments from a long time workmate who used shaped charges with the SAS.
He'd said that they used polystyrene as a means of achieving stand off distance and around a 1:1 ratio.
Apparently this worked exceptionally well underwater, the water creating a resistive mass and the styrene essentially a ~zero mass. Thanks for the video.
Polystyrene and c4 is a very good combo to have on hand if you need to make holes in walls or doors.
A lot of people say this channel is stupid because it’s just blowing up stuff. But what you’re really teaching here is a little bit of algebra and just a little bit of physics. Excellent video Great presentation.
And just like that a whole lot of questions those of us who grew up reading "military manuals" had yet expected we would ever get answers to given the sensitivity of the topic, get their wish granted... Well done folks..
Found an old document about shaped charges. A shaped charge with W75Cu25 liner penetrated steel up to 11 times the charge diameter. Standoff was 10 charge diameters. Mo and some alloys are better than copper.
Copper is cheap, readily available, and easily worked/shaped. Huge advantages for entry-level prototyping and R&D, as well as field-expedient improvisation. No need for a defense-contractor-sized budget.
I would see a 8h explikation !
met this guy at micro center today ... cool dude very helpful to a stranger asking about 3d printer filament lol ... thanks bro yalls channel is pretty dope
I used to work with shaped charges in the oil field in canada. They use them to perforate oil wells to bring them into production. Its great to see them explode on the surface. Thank you
Oh contraire! I would be very happy if you did calculus and exact organic chemistry to explain everything.... Hell if you did a Paul Harrell type of video on explosion examples that would be amazing!
Love to see a part 2 going in more depth with some info on the temperature of the magma jet for optimum performance.
Great work, It'd be cool to see .5 and 1.5 CD standoff to fill out the graph, a wave shaper would also be cool to see if you can extend the jet with the glass liner you're using.
Love the videos guys! Always a nice surprise to see you guys in my feed, keep it up!
I'm glad to see you posting content again. I figured you were working on other (paying) projects, plus the weather in Texas this winter wasn't the best for filming.
Fantastic to see you guys releasing some more long-form content! Really appreciate everything you guys do, your videos are always fascinating and educational.
Great to see you back and releasing videos. Keep up the fantastic work
Interesting results. Thanks for showing us a bit of the science behind shaped charges. Some of us (me) know nothing of shaped charges or their behavior so it was good to have it explained in layman's terms.
Great video. Thank you for bringing us this information.
Great video, I've been missing you guys.
Contemplating EFP science takes up an inordinate amount of my mental activity. Great video. Keep these coming please!
Some satisfying explosions, no doubt.
You are also right up against the "liner angle" issue (like this needs more complication). Which has the added issue of "how 'thin' a wedge" of explosive will still deflagrate explosively. And, if we really wanted to confused the RCMP watching, we could ramble on about the loci of elliptical paraballoids, which would want either 3d milled or printed liners.
It's still cool content.
Great to see you back, looking forward to the new vids☻
Glad your back. Kinda of thought those Mounties caught up with yall.
Excellent video!
Thank you for the video ! ☺♥
Diagrams of military shaped charge warheads seem to have deeper cones into the high explosive than those tested. Be interesting to see how shaped charge:
1. shape
2. stand off distance
affect Monroe Effect penetration
Thank you for making this informative and entertaining video
Welcome back. I have missed your explosive mayhem.
I mean, I would definitely subscribe to a channel where you DO cover all the physics and maths, so if a second nerder channel is a possibility. That would be dope.
Glad to hear you are coming back with all new videos. You do things I can't but - but would love to do
I may sound dumb and I am sure you thought of it but did the first slug just get blown deeply into the ground? You guys are outstanding n finding things and I am just amazed you did not find it
I'm guessing they considered and tested that possibility, but it's still worth asking. Given dirt's superlative performance as a firing range backstop, though, I strongly doubt it.
I work for a search and rescue division of a fire department and I have seen dirt in California when I was in San Francisco during a rolling earthquake quite literally turn to liquid from the shock. So that is why I suggested that it could have sank. I was called out when I was there and saw a 3 story building that had sunk 2 stories just from the shock and the building was in perfect condition as well as the residents. Once we grabbed the jaws of life and a couple chain saws they walked out of the building like nothing happened . So that is why I asked. The world has it's own strange ways sometimes.
Thanks for the reply
Try 1.2-1.5
Also would be interesting to see .6-.8. That way could the cone help penetrate as its forming to the absolute peak ?
Another thing o have found is that straight cone designs are less efficient .
This is due to the explosions shockwave catching up and causing turbulence as the jet forms .
Try a curved outwards design. Similar to how a air horn curves away . I don’t remember the exact curve angle but there’s data on it via a government study from the 1960s . I believe the rpg-7 standard HEAT warhead has a similar form. As does the Javelin tandem warhead .
Easy way to make the liner without spending a small fortune is to 3d print the form and coat it with a powdered metal paint. Then electro plate the form . You can run multiple liners in a plastic bin/s with the same power supply . Great to see you guys back :)
I'm such a test dork I just envisioned a simple test rig to maximize granularity, interchangabikity for production efficiency, and simplicity, using PVC pipe (because reasonably stiff, albeit frangible, but low sectional density to reduce hazard when it fragments), charges and slugs chosen to fit snugky but still dlie inside the pipe, and plastic pegs to ensure a fixed (but easily selectible by the magic of "drill a series of precisely spaced holes at whatever desired distance") stand off, with a setup you can lay on its side in a narrow trench to contain fragments (and hopefully the steel slug).
Of course, this presumes you arenusing an explosibe that is solid (or at least fully constrained) at ambient test temps and 1g acceleration... otherwise you have to bore holes and set the rig up vertically...
Yes, I'm a nerd who enjoys figuring equipment tests that are safe, repeatable, usefully accurate, and as cost-efficient as practical. 😂
What is the largest ever shaped charge used and also what would the effect be if you stuck a ball bearing in the cone of a shaped charge?
Always glad to see your videos. I fall into the dopamine-rush junkie category of viewers 😁
This channel kicks a$$
I will watch, and have watched every video you make 👍
It's clear to me that you should do all of your testing with the 3D Printed Copper Filamet™ from The Virtual Foundry. Also, I'm the guy that makes that material, so I might be somewhat bias.
TVF is interested in sponsoring a video by providing filament (Copper, Tungsten, Pyrex, whatever). We can also print and sinter some Liners for you if you think that might be interesting. -Brad
Boron maybe? That sounds like it would be an awesome set of tests with various materials. We know that the copper filament works, I’d love to see some more types.
@@chemistryofquestionablequa6252 We have SiC, Molybdenum, Yttrium Stabilized Zirconium, and many more. I think some combination of high performance materials may provide an interesting result.
I love explosive and have worked with them for several years. I really like your channel.
so informative
I would like to see if you placed a 55 gallon drum with water under the metal plate to capture the metal and jet after explosion
Solid idea!
Howdy gents, great video as always.
I was wondering what effect increasing the angle of the blast cone would have.
Thank you for the video
Great info… stored away for just in case..!!
Welcome back!!!
I would like to see a long video on the math that goes into this :)
Dig up the first one!
You guys could do a video or series comparing different explosives commonly used throughout history. Like the difference in effectiveness between NC, NG, C4, dunnite and others.
Also I would definitely watch a video about going over the exact science of shaped charges.
Hell yeah you guys are back.
great new video, always love doing science
Absolutely interested in a deep dive on the science & math involved.
I love the content!
Amazing vid and by the way can you make a video on ERA
well, if you want some ideas. how well does a fragmentation sheath perform over a shaped charge? could have interesting uses in rifle or shoulder mounted rockets and grenades
You should try shaped charges on different materials. Another couple that I think would be dope is testing different angles for the liner, or different impact angles(kinda like sloped armor)
Good video!
Thanks!
Love it, so it's not the size, but what you do with it that's important.
yaaaayyyy they posted again
Id love to join these guys. I was in AIT for EOD training but my security clearance was denied for not disclosing a fight i was in in high school and a couple bad references from jobs. But i went on to teach myself quite a bit about explosives. Its something i enjoy the science of and i would definitely subscribe to a more science focused, explosives channel
@ordnancelab
Would you please experiment with the EFP or - Explosively Formed Penetrator concept?
By tweaking the shape, size and detonation sequence timing you can get some gnarly stand-off distance, like up to 100 meters or so.
The explosive is sequence timed so the penetrator plasma takes the shape of a dart with winglets….it’s amazingly gnarly.
I love the fusion of science and explosives on your channel. Keep it up!
I'd take a lesson in physics, maths and energetic chemistry from you guys any time.
Miss you guy... Great to see you brother.
These boys are doing some absolutely bonkers stuff
Love you guys 🥰
After what you have been through, I doubt anyone is upset at the rate you recover your schedule!
So good to see you guys again. The most based channel on the tube, because metric system Americans and explosives :) Cheers
Also new video idea: what Lens is best a taller and more narrow shaped charge or a fat wide and short one, basically I’m just asking for a similar video testing the two different lenses for science…. And entertainment lol stay safe and keep the good work going thanks for all your hard work and dedication
Always riveting content. Any chance to cover the tech used in the WW2 Panzerfaust anti tank weapon?
Welcome back guys!
Hey Jake. My semi expert ish opinion on that slug is that since the charge didn’t have time to lens, it drove the slug straight into the ground.
Please more on shape charges ❤
Video idea! How small can a shaped charge get..can you perhaps make a few shaped charges of different size taking into account the liner thinckness and standoff so its in scale...i would love to see how the penetration scales and how small a shaped charge can get...i mean lets see how small it can get im talking coin sizes and maybe even smaller...Gread videos, love u guys!
Think I’m reading a book longtime a go about shape charge should be the same diameter as distance! So if the cylinder you put your explosives in is 100mm in diameter then its should be the same distance from what you cuting 100mm. But I can also remember wrong! Thank fore a nice video! And sorry fore poor English!
That is true. But you can vary the standoff distance by varying the angle of the penetration liner and its tapered thickness.
The 1:1 diameter/standoff is optimal with 45° angle liner with uniform thickness.
I would love a second channel dedicated to all the science and formulas for this experiment so it can help me be more engage with my science and math classes.
Making things blow up is better than watching things blow up.
I really like these comparative explanations.
What about the material the liner is made from? That must generate penetrators with different penetrative properties and effects.
I find it very fascinating, but I don’t have a clue about explosive properties or how you measure the characteristics.
I was always told a copper liner and 1.5 standoff was the optimal situation.
Work and life first. Keep the booms coming
Dont apologize you turn out great videos. What explosive were you using? RDX, H.M.X.?
Pretty sure the first slug went straight down. The mud underneath responded like ballistic gel and slammed closed over the top of it. Its why the indent has crubles at the bottom instead of a flat impression from the slug. its just rebound material from the walls of the hole.
yeah, this seems more logical than the idea it became random sized chunks.
Agreed, I think this is what happened too. I left a comment saying the same thing. I hope the see it and try digging it up haha
Educational.
That was the goal. Glad it came off as that.
Him: does size matter?
Her: It depends.
I've always been curious how the angle of the liner, or how deep the tip of the liner sits inside the case, effects the stand off distance and end result.
It would be interesting to see how the results compare to theory of what distance is best even if without all the math. Thanks
Love to see some work on EFPs one day!
For next video, can you try longer cones and see their penetration power?
We can def do a video on the liner geometry.
If you actually want to see what happens when a shaped-charged goes off & the lensing of the liner; the Slo-Mo guys did a video from the Colorado Mining school & managed to film one at about 5 million frames a second.
Is there a best material for the liner? I know copper is the one that is mentioned a lot. Id there one that works better or more destructive?
Tantalum is often used in military rounds. Very expensive however, and difficult to source ethically.
@OrdnanceLab Could you maybe try extreme angle shaped charges? i seen an ANSYS calculation of a really whacky design that looked more like a tube than the classic funnel, but according to the ANSYS it had like twice the jet speed of conventional designs. that video is on youtube btw
My favourite job was standing watch while the EOD guys went around the firing ranges here in Japan and collect up unexploded ordnance or just explode them on site!
Also one of my scariest job despite my distance and being in a watch tower I've had luckily only once but a chunk of metal whizz very close past my window, probably wouldn't of done major damage to the tower or me because built tough due to its location but still made me dribble down stairs a bit!! Not posted there anymore but still get sent some awesome videos
the explosive dudes I worked with I can't explain how damn smart they were I don't consider myself smart but I can keep up with a smart person in a conversation and so on but what these dudes talked about in there respective field always blows my mind pun intended lmao doing calculations off the top the head that sound while and I'm just like "well I got my phone 😅"
I would be down for an 8 hour efp masterclass
Depends on what type of shaped charge you use. An EFP needs higher distances than the typical HEAT type.
It also depends on the cone angle with HEAT.
But keeping everything else constant, it scales with the diameter of the load.
Once you find the sweet spot you should make the next set of charges with a built in stand off by making one end just empty tube.
I’d like to see a video that deals with explosive type and mass vs steel thickness to see how that effects spalling