Fuels, Explosives and Propellants: What's the difference?

[@ElementalMaker]

Really enjoyed the video!

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

It couldn't have been made without the footage you kindly provided😉

[@glidercoach]

@@Backyard.Ballistics How can I contact you privately? I need some advice.

[@dottormetile777]

Where are you from?

[@pyromen321]

@ElementalMaker, about half the time I find a super interesting channel, I find you have commented on it months ago. You have great taste!

[@polymythos]

Hours of chemistry classes in 12 minutes, really appreciate appreciate and enjoy the video

[@vincentbaelde-millar670]

This is probably the most concise explanation of the topic I've ever heard, it covers nearly everything I've learned about propellants in the last 20 years in the space of 12 minutes.

[@AlessandroBottoni]

As a chemist, I'm really impressed by the scientific high quality of this video. Great job, really. Kudos!

[@Trisnice]

10:19 "Forgive me NileRed" 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

I wish he would see that😊

[@patricklozito7042]

Concise, correct, clear, and complete.

[@patricklozito7042]

which is also "C4."

[@dumbemokid4442]

This is my favorite video so far it was very informational

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

I'm very glad you liked it, I am always worried that more theoretical videos might be boring. thanks for the feedback and hope you're good!

[@landomt8138]

This was so scientific and interesting, I wasn’t expecting it and was pleasantly surprised! No one seems to combine firearms and science like you do! Thank you

[@harmlesscreationsofthegree1248]

Dude, never think your videos are too long! I could listen to you for hours, so full of knowledge, thank you!

[@bicyclehorsethesixth5562]

Another exceptionally high quality video, for someone in post-graduate immunology I find that I don't always have time to re/read into the foundations of my other hobbies. Thanks for making these videos bud, gonna support you on Patreon when I can!

[@BlurbFish]

A few things that might be worth adding: (1) Molecular nitrogen (N2) is fairly inert because it has a very strong triple bond that is unfavourable to break. This inversely means the triple bond is very favorable to form, and that forming this triple bond releases a tremendous amount of energy. Seeing as nitrogen is a gas even at room temperature, it makes formation of nitrogen a good basis for propellants and explosives, as it not only releases heat but also directly produces gas. (2) The overwhelming majority of metals exist in nature as either sulfides or oxides, and refining these to pure elements requires the expenditure of tremendous amounts of energy. The same symmetry seen with the nitrogen triple bond also exists here, where the formation of metal oxides can be used to release tremendous amounts of energy (thermite being an excellent demonstration). Aluminium not only forms particularly stable bonds with oxygen compared to other metals, but also happens to be a very common element in nature, making it a useful candidate for additives in explosives - where you'll often find it.

[@stevejenkins9984]

The most informative video I've ever seen on KZbin. I've always wondered the chemistry behind some of these things and you've explained them in a way that makes quite good sense. I hope to see more of these science nerd / gun nerd videos coming.

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

You will definitely see more content coming ;) thanks for the feedback

[@thewerepyreking]

Simplifying it down to the chemistry I remember from freshman year really helped. I'll be able to return to this video as a guide later whenever I forget.

[@Sideshowbobx]

I really enjoyed that short ride thru the chemistry of all that - too bad that it was so short yet. You should really spin this into a series now with an episode for each.

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

I'll see what I can do... I want to get a proper professional explosive licence so that I can show things in practice, along with the theory

[@Brindles69]

Your explanation was superb! Thoroughly enjoyed and even I could understand lol! Keep up the great work - Regards from Wales:)

[@sinisterthoughts2896]

fantastic video! I liked the periodic table graphics you used, very good nice for demonstrating your subject. I can't wait for the next video.

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

thank you very much both for your kind words and for the feedback. I'm definitely not an experienced video editor, so it took me quite some time to figure out how to make those simple animations😂

[@MrMartinSchou]

This was one of the most informative videos I've ever seen on this subject. Also, I love the callouts to other channels :)

[@Tahmanakki]

Real underrated channel.

[@cesarlopezsuarez9697]

As a chemist, I really enjoyed your video!

[@misterbacon4933]

Me too!😀👍

[@janhulek785]

As a person turned off from chemistry by an uninteresting teacher, I really enjoyed it too!

[@qaziwasiullah9984]

Very informative, representation of hard work and deep study. Excellent

[@MBkufel]

Keep it up! Your content is very good, and it's getting better with each video

[@ricplays5905]

This channel is sooooo underrated. Love ur content man!

[@ekim000]

Excellent! You cleared up by number of misconceptions I've laboured under since . . forever.

[@luissantiago5163]

Oh this is interesting stuff. Haven't watched you in a bit. Hope you are doing well.

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

I can't complain... but I need to start moving again, I'm getting fat😂

[@luissantiago5163]

@@Backyard.Ballistics I'm in the same boat. Haha

[@Camwize]

I could have watched another hour! You are a great teacher.

[@jean-louisbeaufils5699]

Somebody may have already noted this, but the storable oxydizer used in rockets such as Proton (the one shown with the pointy end down), Ariane I-IV, Atlas II-IV, etc... is actually nitrogen tetroxyde. Nitric acid, mostly in its red fuming variety, was also used in the early days of rocketry, both civilian and military, but was quickly abandonned after N2O4 was identified as suitable. If you haven't read it, I strongly suggest Ignition! - an informal history of liquid rocket propellants by John D. Clark, both highly informative and hilarious.

[@williambrewer]

One of the best explanations I've ever heard.

[@balisticjoe]

Love this video, excellent content and breakdown. Have a book you recommend for further reading on subject?

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

The only one that comes to my mind now is a very good book by John D. Clark called "Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants". It focuses on liquid rocket propellants, but is very good, I highly suggest it.

[@bolbarazvan]

I lold so hard at the coffin dance :))))))))

[@piotrr5439]

same, whose rocket was that?

[@SpruceReduce8854]

@@piotrr5439 in the upper right corner he credits it to Roscosmos, the Russian state space corporation

[@bolbarazvan]

@@piotrr5439 "Proton" rocket (failed) launch, 2013.

[@AKAtheA]

kinda' surprised he didn't use the entire clip of the exploding rocket as is shows a ridiculously powerful shockwave ...

[@jaarriaga1978]

Best chemistry class of my life!

[@m4tol]

I hope you are a school teacher, because we need more like you... perfect presentation!

[@DogeMcLovin]

I'm not that good at chemistry, but the delivery of this video makes a lot of sense!

[@fabriziopizzanelli7035]

Thank you for this video! I learned a lot

[@darkstar453]

This is a really good explanation of the topic but I'm definitely on some kind of watchlist now.

[@BelmontClan]

Wonderful presentation and accurate thank you for the video very glad I subscribed.

[@MrMatmulan]

Man, what a great video, would love to see you going deeper on subjects like this. Cheers from Brasil!

[@MrMatmulan]

This is easily one of the most interesting videos, and one of the best videos I’ve seen on KZbin over the years

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

thank you very much, I truly appreciate, since this type of more theoretical videos usually gets less views, so I'm happy to know that somebody really enjoyed it

[@niflheims]

Really clear and well explained in a concise way! Thank you

[@kagi95]

God I love watching explanations made from first principles. No room for mysticism or vague bullshit. Pure science. Amazing! I'm also wondering if you had the time to look into the question I sent you regarding the bullet tumble in flight and whether "fleet yaw" exists. Thanks!

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

Ah shit I forgot🤦‍♂️ I promise that I'm answering your email tomorrow

[@RealMrSmit]

You deserve 10 million subscribers

[@VeraTR909]

Really good explanation, giving a good grasp of the basics.

[@christopherpappas7474]

You took me back to my university days:) Hope you and your family are well and safe and Italy is getting back to normal. 🙃☮️

[@kaikrumm8615]

This is pretty much as accurate as it can be in 12 Minutes

[@mankuzos1473]

This was super informative and very entertaining to watch!

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

Glad you enjoyed it!😉

[@muffinman2621]

Excellent video, very thorough!

[@john-paulsilke893]

This one slipped me by. Very interesting and ima very glad I caught up with it.

[@trixrabbit8792]

I always enjoy these videos. Keep it up.

[@ARandomTroll]

Great video! Also nitrogen is not dead weight. N2 is inert because it is highly stable. By breaking down nitrogen compounds you not only create gas volume but the nitrogen also provides a significant amount of energy by returning to it's stable state. I highly recomend the channel explosions and fire for more insight. Most australian chemist on this site.

[@Ocato92]

4:58 "Their use is practically non-existing as fuels" Triethylborane in Falcon 9 starters: Am I a joke to you?

[@misterbacon4933]

Wow a chemistry course in 12 minutes! Great! 👍

[@Spork888]

This video was a godsend.

[@rendy2888]

Another great video, can you please make a video about polygonal rifling?

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

I will do at some point😉

[@agentham]

All I can say is "wow" and "well done". 👏👏

[@tommygun2235]

You should totally do a video talking about what rubber bullets are and exactly how they function. It would definitely be relevant to what’s going on in the USA.

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

You know what... that's a great idea. Thanks for suggesting. I briefly talked about them in my "Taser" video by the way

[@sebekglab]

Excellent presentation.

[@St0RM33]

So what was the answer to last's video tungsten riddle? Barrel wear?

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

You can find the full solution in my community tab, I figured it was better to post it there than in the video: kzbin.info/door/acYi5TdkFISudHwHgGlLPwcommunity

[@Valkanna.Nublet]

Very good explanation :)

[@Anton-cg7og]

This dude needs more subs!

[@Naboula01]

Hello, i just found your channel. This video has so much information in it that i will need to rewatch it at least 3 time to understand it. By the way one more subscriber for you, keep the good work ! PS : your videos colors seems a little dark, you could try to play with the lightining of the raw footage first.

[@jeffjefferson2676]

4:10 Sulfur can be useful to ignite aluminum in a mixture, while aluminum is hard to ignite. Perchlorates are also a good ingredient in explosive mixtures. CLO4. What they sometimes do to make "thermobaric" bombs is to add some ingredients (S or ClO4,) to make the fuel get to react (Al or Mg or C) better with the rocket fuel or explosive (read ammonium nitrate based rocket fuel or explosive). Also you can get a bigger bang per weight of explosive mixture, if you make a thermobaric mixture. And thus a higher explosive rating (running up to 3 times the power or more of TNT for the same weight). So it is basically a big firecracker (flashpowder) mixed with an explosive substance. Greetings, Jeff

[@AKAtheA]

FYI there was a real test rocket engine built that used hydrogen, lithium and fluorine (all at the same time!). It has the highest ever recorded specific impulse for a chemical rocket. For attempts on using fluorine as an oxidizer, I recommend the book "Ignition!"

[@johangrundlingh3729]

AKAtheA I really enjoyed reading that book!

[@paul85039]

Thank you Sir, I really enjoy your videos

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

Glad you like them!

[@Oldmankingspiffy]

Great job 👏

[@sigmawarrior.fokeryou]

GREAT CONTENT!!!!

[@honeythefunnybadger3418]

Fai dei bellissimi video!

[@pjmoore6214]

Super interesting video and clarifies a lot

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

Glad you think so!

[@BigPete1911]

Very interesting video 👍

[@lukeskywalkermod3686]

I didn’t think I would be watching this at 2 in the morning

[@finnmurtonz7062]

I was so focused on the explanation, while watching that rocket explode, and then the meme hahahaha

[@mitchelletzkin852]

Great video, can you make a video about TriGliceride exploding by pressure and not ignition flame source?

[@Qwertypp10]

I think it is worth noting that in solid fuel rockets sometimes are/were used as additives metal powder (like Al), as additive to black powder rockets, not as fuel, but to rise the temperature of the reaction.

[@BogeyTheBear]

Fuel: A substance that releases some form of usable energy, the most commonly exploited form being heat. Propellant: A fuel substance whose released energy is exploited as an accelerating mass, most commonly gas generation which is collected and directed-- trading pressure for velocity. Explosive: Either a reaction mass that is prevented from accelerating, transducing kinetic energy into potential energy by trading acceleration for pressure; or a propellant whose energy release is faster than the ambient speed of sound, thus creating supersonic shock without the need for pressure containment prior to release.

[@danielsankey8786]

Hi, I would like to know something, could you poke the muzzle of something with a blank round in it into the valve of a tyre, and use it to inflate the tyre?

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

the application you are referring to is called "gas generator". Smokeless powder can of course be used for that purpose, but is not the best suited substance, first because it releases the products at very high temperatures, which means that at first you have a huge volume of gas, and soon after, with the gas cooling, it shrinks by about 10 times. Second, a large portion of the reaction products is composed by steam, which condenses into liquid water below 100°C, further reducing the residual volume at room temperature. A CO2 canister is much more effective in filling tires ;)

[@danielsankey8786]

@@Backyard.Ballistics thanks for the reply, what made me curious is the various videos of people setting the bead of a tyre by spraying a small amount of aerosol in there and lighting it, I searched but cannot find anyone attempting it with a firearm

[@EngrDan-wb5pe]

Wao your video is highly educative, I have been wondering if TNT is more energy dense than hydrogen????

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

No it is not, at least by weight. Nitro derived explosives have lower energy density (by mass) than any oxygen-hydrocarbon combination. It's the price to pay if you want a storable and compact propellant/explosive

[@DevyKins]

Hey BB, I was wondering if I could get permission to use some of the footage of you shooting for the audio? Your recordings are beefy as hell and would sound FANTASTIC for film!

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

of course you can, no worries

[@DevyKins]

@@Backyard.Ballistics Thanks man!

[@mohammedahmad7151]

Please, can you tell me similarity between fuel and an explosion?

[@KiithnarasAshaa]

"Nitrogen is typically fine on its own" [Nervously glances at the entire class of Azides]

[@doraran2138]

Great video as always. Had organic chemistry years ago, good refresher. A concept I have difficulty conveying is regarding detonation, with light loads of black powders not properly compressed to shooters. Your thoughts welcomed.

[@colsoncustoms8994]

You can have something similar happen with reduced loads of slow burning smokeless powders in rifle cartridges. Rather than a clean burn, it all goes at once and can cause bad pressure spikes.

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

you're not the only one having trouble understanding the Secondary Explosion Effect, since no scientific consesus on its working exists at the moment. 😉 I even tried to replicate it myself with black powder in some disposable barrels, and never got it to happen.

[@doraran2138]

A few years ago I saw a .44 caliber Belgian copy of a S&W Russian style revolver, with a split in the cylinder, shooter supposedly was under loading by 50% the cartridges with black powder and nothing to occupy airspace in cartridge (like corn meal) and one round was said to have 'detonated'. I am merely repeating what I was told, and my skepticism entertains other possibilities such as a overload, barrel obstruction, timing issues, pre-existing stressing of cylinder from past use wrong ammo (.44 Special and .44 Magnum wadcutter rounds can sometimes fit in those straight walled cylinders.) Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood combustion was the chemical alteration of a chemical induced by heat, while detonation is act of forcing molecules together under high pressure to cause a greater release of energy. That's why C-4 can be lit with a match and will merely burn, while an explosive charge, like from a blasting cap, will cause an explosion.

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

@@doraran2138 the chemical reaction is the same, but the way the flame front propagates is different. In deflagration the energetic material gets its initiation energy by thermal conduction, so a given particle burns because its neighbor particles heat it up. In detonation the flame front is propagated by a shock wave, which provides the initiation energy. The velocity at which the shock propagates is a property of the explosive, and is indicated as velocity of detonation. The proposed phenomenon related to rare gun accidents, called secondary explosion effect, is not necessarily linked to a detonation, and in any case is certainly not a typical one.

[@doraran2138]

I like term secondary explosion effect as it's probably less misleading. From my limited chemistry background (general, organic, biochemistry and pharmacology) I might be able to see, in a rare set of circumstances where powder not packed, therefore not slowing wave, that the full pulse of primer may cause the wave you describe in detonation. However, that should be a repeatable phenomenon, that you mention is not case. My skepticism still needs to rule out the factors described and others when considering detonation/secondary explosion possibility. Anyway, thanks for the clarity of your response on deflagration/detonation.

[@jimmehjiimmeehh9748]

The ATF in America just recently released a rules update defining firearms as something that uses explosives to launch a projectile from a barrel. Which struck me as odd since gunpowder isn't an explosive (I don't beleive, it deflagrates rather than detonates) and you'd think they'd know that. I wonder what kind of legal issues this will cause.

[@allangibson2408]

Gunpowder detonates when held under pressure (like ammonium nitrate).

[@ahtauwylye1340]

Would alcohol be a good propellant?

[@musikSkool]

Oh, so that's why we don't have liquid or gas powered guns, energy density is low. I get confused because gasoline has 132 megajoules per gallon, so a teaspoon of gasoline is 171 kilo-joules. But you would need an oxidizer and that is where it fails. Hydrogen-peroxide would work much better, but I think it absorbs contaminants too easily which would throw off combustion. I am imagining a gun that has 2 separate liquid fuel compartments and only needs the bullet part of the cartridge. Since it doesn't rely on the pressure that the casing can handle, you could theoretically achieve much higher pressures. Or at least cut out all the excess weight of all the casings and make guns lighter.

[@zuthalsoraniz6764]

However, the nonstorability of liquid oxygen was partially also a benefit for oxyliquits. It means that in the case an oxyliquit charge was a dud, it would become safe on its own within a relatively short time as the liquid oxygen boiled off and dispersed.

[@jakubknotek4891]

Dude this is an university grade shit 👍

[@poisonsniper_4982]

What the intro song?

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

I'm sorry I forgot where I took it from...

[@poisonsniper_4982]

Oh well if you remember just tell me

[@muffinman2621]

I think it's this one? soundcloud.com/cosimo-fogg/jazzaddicts-intro

[@Fede_uyz]

Nuclear exolosions be like: y'all are soooo 19th century

[@officedullard8722]

Ah, yes, indeed. I concur. 🤔

[@bigmango202]

Are those zippo flints in the thumbnail?

[@timucintarakc2281]

i watched this video 3 times. i even saved it in order you decide to remove it.

[@evphex]

This presentation seems more focused on making a presentation, rather than teaching anything useful.

[@sjoormen1]

You convinced me. I know nothing.

[@velascofernandez1999]

cool video you should check out extractions & ire and his other chanel

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

I am already a big fan of him, I follow him since long before I started this channel🙂

[@xnxx2297]

I like vidio

[@justarandomtechpriest1578]

May I guess you put fuel in a vehichle Explosive is for when you want to blow something up And propellant make the round go nyoom

[@KiithnarasAshaa]

I'll actually disagree a little; Fluorine is absolutely the "king" of oxidizers as it will readily and vigorously oxidize substances at room temperature upon contact while oxygen will behave much more tamely. Fluorine loves to spontaneously and vigorously oxidize everything including pressure vessels, hoses, pipes, lab equipment, lab technicians, safety barriers, water, and fire suppression systems. Sure, it's a more potent oxidizer than oxygen, but only the criminally-insane think it is a good idea to try to actually work with it. ; )

[@allangibson2408]

The absolute king of oxidisers is Chlorine fluoride (either Trifluoride or Pentafluoride). They are hypergolic with glass. They are widely used in the semiconductor industry to remove glass splatter from stainless steel containers. They were developed as chemical weapons during WW2 but the Germans found them to dangerous to handle.

[@aubrey5569]

For the algorithm

[@Backyard.Ballistics]

thanks!

[@riptidecosmos5772]

First

[@thelazy0ne]

Purell® ements 🤭

[@super1337bf3ordie]

i know why yopu have shaky hands i have the same condition i cant shoot pistols its slightly worse then how you have it

[@karas3248]

No one: Me: "oxidizing is for losers, acceleration using electromagnitism is the future"

[@ThePinkerton1776]

I wish the accent was easier to understand