That's going to leave a mark...

Matthew said:
yowza. What blew?
Click to expand...
Should have put in the post it happened in Beirut, Lebenon at the port. Don't know... fireworks, fertilizer, Iranian shipment to Syria.......:rolleyes:
 
Looked like grain silos in one of the angles. But I'm not sure if there was a primary and then a much larger secondary explosion.


I found this on the Google Earth, looks like one of the structures:
Untitled.jpg
 
There are some reports of it being tied to Hezbollah. I think there are some trials going on at the moment.
 
Fertilizer ? Looks like the footage from the 1947 'Grandcamp' explosion.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if there is a group of highly trained agents going around the mid-east and Persia strategically blowing stuff up . . . or just clumsy terrorists?
 
Just imagine someone having the ability to record the video in the correct orientation. That would make for a great video
 
NJP_MAN said:
Just imagine someone having the ability to record the video in the correct orientation. That would make for a great video
Click to expand...

....says the sideways question mark guy :)
 
weilke said:
Fertilizer ? Looks like the footage from the 1947 'Grandcamp' explosion.
Click to expand...
It takes a unique set of circumstances to develop such a defined secondary explosion and subsequent destructive blast wave. Supposedly was heard and felt in Cyprus 180 miles away.
 
Ammonium nitrate fertilizer (urea) is an oxidizer. It needs to be mixed with a fuel to do any harm.
 
Bell206 said:
It takes a unique set of circumstances to develop such a defined secondary explosion and subsequent destructive blast wave. Supposedly was heard and felt in Cyprus 180 miles away.
Click to expand...

In both the Grandcamp (Texas City) explosion and the blowup of the fertilizer storage facility in West,TX, most of the energy came from regular old ammonia nitrate. While it works best with a substrate to oxidize, if heated and confined, higher concentrations of AN are able to sustain an explosion.
 
Now being reported that it was an Ammonium Nitrate explosion. 50 dead, 3000 injured. Not a good outcome. Condolences and best wishes to the people of Beirut.
 
2700 metric tons of AN. That's probably one of the larger conventional explosions. Same ballpark as the Grandcamp and multiples of tonnage set off in the Tianjin, West and Oppau disasters.
 
After reading about the Halifax Harbour explosion and all those people behind their living room windows, watching it, then tiny shards of high speed glass blinding them, I decided long ago if I see a puff of smoke I am not sticking around to watch it and damn sure not from behind glass such as apartment glass no matter how far away.
 
weilke said:
2700 metric tons of AN. That's probably one of the larger conventional explosions. Same ballpark as the Grandcamp and multiples of tonnage set off in the Tianjin, West and Oppau disasters.
Click to expand...

So if my calculations are correct that the explosive power of AN by weight is about 1/12 that of TNT, then this would be the equivalent of 224 ton of TNT.

The conventional test explosion for the Trinity Test site was evidently 100 ton of TNT. So this was a bit over twice that.

The atomic explosion of The Gadget itself was about 17k ton TNT equivalent. So this was about 1/75 of the first atomic explosion.
 
weilke said:
Fertilizer ? Looks like the footage from the 1947 'Grandcamp' explosion.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought,too

Dan Thomas said:
Ammonium nitrate fertilizer (urea) is an oxidizer. It needs to be mixed with a fuel to do any harm.
Click to expand...
No, and no. Ammonium nitrate can go off on its own if heated sufficiently. It decomposes into nitrous oxide and water. More heat, and it goes to nitrogen, oxygen, and water.
Urea is a different compound, it is two amines joined by a carbonyl. Think of acetone, with the methyl groups replaced by NH2.
PeterNSteinmetz said:
So if my calculations are correct that the explosive power of AN by weight is about 1/12 that of TNT, then this would be the equivalent of 224 ton of TNT.

The conventional test explosion for the Trinity Test site was evidently 100 ton of TNT. So this was a bit over twice that.

The atomic explosion of The Gadget itself was about 17k ton TNT equivalent. So this was about 1/75 of the first atomic explosion.
Click to expand...
What reaction did you use to make the calculations?
Arnold said:
Now being reported that it was an Ammonium Nitrate explosion. 50 dead, 3000 injured. Not a good outcome. Condolences and best wishes to the people of Beirut.
Click to expand...
Agree with the sentiment.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I just used the stated enthalpies for decomposition of both compounds per mole and their molar weights.
Click to expand...
Not that simple. There's three different decomposition paths for ammonium nitrate. One of them is endothermic.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Not that simple. There's three different decomposition paths for ammonium nitrate. One of them is endothermic.
Click to expand...

Yes, I guess the relative effectiveness factor is actually 0.42 for ammonium nitrate.

So this was the equivalent of 1.15 ktn TNT. Or about 1/18 of the first atomic bombs. Wow!
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Yes, I guess the relative effectiveness factor is actually 0.42 for ammonium nitrate.

So this was the equivalent of 1.15 ktn TNT. Or about 1/18 of the first atomic bombs. Wow!
Click to expand...
I just noticed you said "both compounds" - what's the other compound other than ammonium nitrate?
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I just used the stated enthalpies for decomposition of both compounds per mole and their molar weights.
Click to expand...
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Yes, I guess the relative effectiveness factor is actually 0.42 for ammonium nitrate.

So this was the equivalent of 1.15 ktn TNT. Or about 1/18 of the first atomic bombs. Wow!
Click to expand...
Wiki says the GBU 43 MOAB is listed at 11 tons TNT equivalent.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Not that simple. There's three different decomposition paths for ammonium nitrate. One of them is endothermic.
Click to expand...

All of the tables comparing relative power of commercial explosives compare TNT with ANFO, not pure AN. The only reference I could find for pure AN (written from a hazmat perspective) has AN at 56% by weight compared with TNT.
The reason bulk AN is not treated as an explosive is because it is pretty hard to get it to detonate, not because it doesn't make a good kaboom when it does.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
All of the tables comparing relative power of commercial explosives compare it with ANFO with TNT, not pure AN. The only reference I could find for pure AN (written from a hazmat perspective) has AN at 56% by weight compared with TNT.
The reason bulk AN is not treated as an explosive is because it is pretty hard to get it to detonate, not because it doesn't make a good kaboom when it does.
Click to expand...
No disagreement there, and that was part of the point I was making. It was an earth-shattering kaboom. If it was fertilizer, some of the other components in the fertilizer catalyze the explosive decomposition. As it had a fire before the explosion, that was pretty much required to get it to blow, too.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
No disagreement there, and that was part of the point I was making. It was an earth-shattering kaboom. If it was fertilizer, some of the other components in the fertilizer catalyze the explosive decomposition. As it had a fire before the explosion, that was pretty much required to get it to blow, too.
Click to expand...

Most AN explosions have been initiated by a fire (except for the Oppau disaster, that was set off by a deliberately thrown stick of dynamite o_O ).
 
There has been mention of 'fireworks' going off before the explosion. The videos that show the 'fireworks' are from a mile away, I somehow think that those weren't fireworks but more likely drums of 'something' stored in the warehouse getting shot through the roof.

The isolation distance for a burning rail car of AN is 1600m (1 mile). Probably a good idea to stick to that.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
TNT.

But it appears the relative effectiveness is 0.56. So even higher.
Click to expand...
I didn't think there was TNT there? AFAIK, it was a fire followed by an explosion from the ammonium nitrate. At least that all they are reporting now.
 
I also see a parallel to the Texas city explosion and the Beirut explosion. Both had a fire prior to the explosion.

The exception is. the Texas city explosion was contained in a ship.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
At least that all they are reporting now.
Click to expand...
And other reporting is stating fireworks, explosives, petrol, and fertilizer all stored in the same proximity and was the center of a black-market trade organization. What a wonderful collection. What could go wrong....

Out of curiosity, are there any conventional weapons (MOAB, FOAB) that would compare to this type of blast? Or would it be more in line with a tactical nuke?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
No, and no. Ammonium nitrate can go off on its own if heated sufficiently. It decomposes into nitrous oxide and water. More heat, and it goes to nitrogen, oxygen, and water.
Urea is a different compound, it is two amines joined by a carbonyl. Think of acetone, with the methyl groups replaced by NH2.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected.
 
Bell206 said:
And other reporting is stating fireworks, explosives, petrol, and fertilizer all stored in the same proximity and was the center of a black-market trade organization. What a wonderful collection. What could go wrong....

Out of curiosity, are there any conventional weapons (MOAB, FOAB) that would compare to this type of blast? Or would it be more in line with a tactical nuke?
Click to expand...
I read that it was confiscated material, but that doesn't really matter with respect to the end result.
I've no idea what weapons compare to this sort of explosion, other than a big one. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top