Does Size Matter? | Explosive Shaped Charge Comparison

[@OrdnanceLab]

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.

[@KevinSmith-yh6tl]

Anything you guys do is great!

[@Nehpruett]

I'll fund an experiment!! Where is a good place to contact y'all?

[@joshuagibson2520]

Exploding cat butthole.

[@TriggerHappy.]

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?

[@Nehpruett]

Copper thermite might be interesting to test.

[@mezzanoon]

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 KZbin, dozens I say

[@mezzanoon]

Explosions and Fire's alternate channel Extractions and Ire is a good example that it could work!

[@volvo09]

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.

[@djsnowman06]

As of me writing. 3 dozen. Lol

[@kevinbee7236]

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

[@markfergerson2145]

The problem as I see it is the potential for misuse of the information. A lot of expensive research has gone into how to design shaped charges by various governments since the idea was first hatched (it’s probably older than you might think) precisely because of their use as weapons of war, and that phrase tends to get the KZbin Masters panties in a twist. Any specifics about the ideal relationships between liner material, thickness and shape, the kind and amount of explosive used and so forth will allow some idiot to build a device they can use for less than peaceful purposes. See such devices handcrafted by insurgents in the Middle East under instructions from engineering students with inconvenient political affiliations. A lot of older knowledge is publicly available, based on older explosives etc. a really determined person could derive the above mentioned relationships to let them design effective devices using what they have on hand, and our friends who run this channel do not need that kind of legal exposure. This particular geek would also find a presentation on these topics fascinating and potentially useful, but then I’m not a potential terrorist.

[@CF_Sapper]

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...

[@jlambuth]

I need to make an arch-bishop for a video. LOL

[@netWiz1]

When not too busy, perhaps put it on a second channel, say OrdnanceLabSci?

[@samcclintic]

Second the motion. Would love to see the supporting math and physics.

[@jlambuth]

@@samcclintic Well, looks like I need to do a video on the math and physics.

[@jonathanb7750]

Look up shaped charges and SCAP CODE. It is very comprehensive

[@Motoko_Urashima]

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.

[@OrdnanceLab]

You have a solid point.

[@robertsmith4681]

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

[@galileocavallaro]

​@@OrdnanceLabWhat plastic material do you use in the 3D printer to make these shaped fillers? 

[@johncooper4637]

@@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.

[@robertsmith4681]

@@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.

[@theCodyReeder]

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?

[@OrdnanceLab]

Absolutely. Email Jake at [e-mail] and we can go from there.

[@RichardCranium321]

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.

[@Zerostar369]

Yes! Cody's lab + high explosives???? Count me in!

[@jormalonnberg1578]

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.

[@teejin669]

LETS FUCKING GO

[@victormartin2774]

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.

[@jlambuth]

I am glad you enjoy that part!

[@sammywilliamson3113]

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

[@ericmoney4572]

Now I wanna see some info on how the angle of the cone of the liner affects the results.

[@johngriffin618]

yes!

[@jlambuth]

That is a solid idea. You got it.

[@netWiz1]

That'd warrant testing angle and subtle variations on standoff (ie .8 1.0 and 1.3)

[@jlambuth]

@@netWiz1 agreed

[@muskyman1018]

Yes, start rounded and proceed to more conical.

[@bsa45acp]

Anyone who believes that size does not matter has never played with explosives.

[@OrdnanceLab]

You know, that would make a great t-shirt.

[@nehorlavazapalka]

@@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.

[@DH-xw6jp]

​@@nehorlavazapalkahow long have you had your explosive ordnance license?

[@willholly1844]

​@@DH-xw6jp BATFE has entered the comments. Alert!!!!!

[@Aaron-zu3xn]

it's not the size that matters it's how fast it goes off?

[@ohasis8331]

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.

[@rnts08]

Polystyrene and c4 is a very good combo to have on hand if you need to make holes in walls or doors.

[@brandons9398]

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.

[@robertsmith4681]

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..

[@ranndomundead9112]

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

[@phobos1963]

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

[@netWiz1]

This could have worked the night of the first test (0 standoff), assuming the rain didn't mess up flight or cooling

[@netWiz1]

​@@phobos1963I believe the user means the zero- standoff test

[@alanhinkel420]

He’ll find it if he ever cuts the grass.

[@patman0250]

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.

[@rippertrain]

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

[@Mark-k2z9p]

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.

[@dionh70]

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.

[@geodkyt]

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. 😂

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

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

[@Prime2112]

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!

[@EchoSixMike]

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.

[@Rex_Reaper]

Love to see a part 2 going in more depth with some info on the temperature of the magma jet for optimum performance.

[@budm9982]

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.

[@hippis563]

I would see a 8h explikation !

[@JamieStuff]

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.

[@NewHandleTown]

Fantastic to see you guys releasing some more long-form content! Really appreciate everything you guys do, your videos are always fascinating and educational.

[@CAPNMAC82]

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.

[@FarmerDrew]

Contemplating EFP science takes up an inordinate amount of my mental activity. Great video. Keep these coming please!

[@VintageBlacklist]

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.

[@brucegould2944]

Great to see you back and releasing videos. Keep up the fantastic work

[@Zachmman1997]

Love the videos guys! Always a nice surprise to see you guys in my feed, keep it up!

[@BradleyDWoods-pz8rv]

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

[@chemistryofquestionablequa6252]

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.

[@BradleyDWoods-pz8rv]

@@chemistryofquestionablequa6252 We have SiC, Molybdenum, Yttrium Stabilized Zirconium, and many more. I think some combination of high performance materials may provide an interesting result.

[@MAZEMIND]

I would like to see a long video on the math that goes into this :)

[@johndilday1846]

Welcome back. I have missed your explosive mayhem.

[@lucassmith2332]

Glad your back. Kinda of thought those Mounties caught up with yall.

[@JakkuTheMagicalCattu]

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 😅"

[@eric81872]

Thank you for the video ! ☺♥

[@percisionshot4331]

I love explosive and have worked with them for several years. I really like your channel.

[@ExperientialLearning]

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.

[@dand8538]

Great to see you back, looking forward to the new vids☻

[@toolmakerbest1584]

After what you have been through, I doubt anyone is upset at the rate you recover your schedule!

[@nicholastrawinski]

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.

[@OuT2FaR]

yeah, this seems more logical than the idea it became random sized chunks.

[@eliteman125]

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

[@sugarglider8927]

@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!

[@thestandupphilosophers]

Love it, so it's not the size, but what you do with it that's important.

[@charlesthom2462]

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.

[@Spicoli1Bilek]

I believe that 1-1.2% is the perfect stand-off. Back in the 90's there was a show on discovery channel that shows how the RPG7 and other shaped charges use a stand-off that allows the cone to hit just as it fully inverts.

[@artynb2360]

Can you make a mini shaped charge and try to put it into a pager or walkie talkie?

[@3870TheDad]

Great video, I've been missing you guys.

[@wagnerfamily4229]

Great video. Thank you for bringing us this information.

[@thunderace4588]

Thank you for making this informative and entertaining video

[@KulKlas]

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!

[@John-ir2zf]

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.

[@mightyfinejonboy]

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?

[@giovannilp03]

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)

[@dappersquid27]

4:42 So THATS why theres a metal cylinder lodged in my roof

[@daniho6223]

I'd take a lesson in physics, maths and energetic chemistry from you guys any time.

[@bdub0983]

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

[@TheRealCCSmith]

This channel kicks a$$ I will watch, and have watched every video you make 👍

[@pernykvist3442]

Dig up the first one!

[@johngruka4056]

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

[@OrdnanceLab]

Solid idea!

[@shanek6582]

I bet that lost steel slug is about 4 feet deep right where it sat.

[@Not-TheOne]

Great experiment!

[@kendalldavis99]

These boys are doing some absolutely bonkers stuff

[@garymcdonald6529]

Excellent video!

[@plutonium87]

So good to see you guys again. The most based channel on the tube, because metric system Americans and explosives :) Cheers

[@rdsmith334]

Absolutely interested in a deep dive on the science & math involved.

[@bsod4144]

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!

[@kylehowat6775]

I highly doubt it, but could a shaped charge be somewhat effective with flash powder as the charge? Does anyone have input on this?

[@wyldanimal2]

@4:48 the slug is deep in the Hole under the debris that fell in over top of it.

[@wyldanimal2]

At Zero standoff distance, All of the Force Pushes Directly on the target. While you don't get the Hot shaped charged Jet to Penetrate the target, you get an equal amount of force on the target. So it was enough to Push the target deep in to the ground, with lots of debris falling back in on top of it. That's my evaluation of the slow mode, played at .25 speed.

[@Doc-Holliday1776]

Hell yeah you guys are back.

[@Gadamlu]

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

[@nitt3rz]

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.

[@HarshmanHills]

Work and life first. Keep the booms coming

[@Spaser15]

Howdy gents, great video as always. I was wondering what effect increasing the angle of the blast cone would have.

[@Gunbudder]

i would LOVE to see you guys get with Explosions and Fire (or any other youtube chemist) and make a large amount of cubane. Lots of people have been making cubane lately, but i haven't seen a single video showing a detonation of it. the closest i've seen so far is a few people have shown that it burns pretty energetically. lets see a cubane detonation!!!

[@davidvincent1093]

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

[@dionh70]

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.

[@davidvincent1093]

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

[@darrelldutsch]

Miss you guy... Great to see you brother.

[@anotherplottwist]

Get a metal detector out there, your first shot is possibly a foot under the ground.

[@judyfps5059]

you’re likely busy. But a shaped charge collab with slo mo guys would be amazing to see

[@raulhatescheese]

Welcome back guys!

[@Samonie67]

great new video, always love doing science

[@cjvoges6563]

Welcome back!!!

[@richardjones2811]

I was always told a copper liner and 1.5 standoff was the optimal situation.

[@pungaking]

Thought you guys had simply stopped posting, turns out youtube just doesn't notify me on new uploads anymore

[@yazanzo3bi610]

so informative

[@trinitro5968]

Always good videos, wish you guys had a better camera. Completely understand though. Just think your videos could be even better than amazing with the footage slowed down in detail. Also quick question just incase i missed it? What is your shaped liner made of, for this video?

[@jackmclane1826]

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.

[@letsgobrandontrump2024]

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

[@jamesavery6015]

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.

[@KINGIBEXX]

Good video!

[@OrdnanceLab]

Thanks!

[@nogodsnokingsonlymen8538]

I would be down for an 8 hour efp masterclass

[@ku4ap]

Great info… stored away for just in case..!!

[@DrakeingNbakeing]

yaaaayyyy they posted again

[@CplSkiUSMC]

Two important questions: First... if you change the shape (angle and depth) of the penetrator cone, would that change the "focal" distance of the explosive force and alter the standoff distance? Second, did you dig down to see if you drove that first steel target straight into the ground? Kinda looks like you might have.

[@xxxm981]

@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

[@chriswalford4161]

P.S.; I’m glad you’re purposefully busy.

[@chriswalford4161]

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.

[@andygustafson1]

It would be interesting to see how the results compare to theory of what distance is best even if without all the math. Thanks

[@highflyerl23]

There must be a mathematical formula to optimize penetration of the target metal while minimizing amount of explosive used. You could make a quick look up table of penetration vs charge size shape etc

[@larryclemens1850]

Just as you pointed out that there may be some point between one and two times the diameter that may give better penetration, it is an assumption that this point doesn't exist at some point approaching one diameter. My suspicion is that one diameter is correct, but I would feel more comfortable making that assertion if .75 and 1.25 were also tested.

[@malisengjabum5959]

For next video, can you try longer cones and see their penetration power?

[@OrdnanceLab]

We can def do a video on the liner geometry.

[@spyersecol0013]

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.

[@skydivingcomrade1648]

Thank you for the video