http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

Steve

In article , "Steve B" wrote:
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator_(railway)

Even more to know. And no, Steve, they were not. Among other things, railroad
torpedos existed almost 30 years before dynamite was invented.

On Jan 21, 10:51*am, "Steve B" wrote:
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. *And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

Steve

Not the ones I am familiar with. I dont know if there were another
type made. I do know for sure one ingredient they had in them, sand.

Jimmie

Steve B wrote:
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

Interesting reading. I remember cabooses.

On Jan 21, 11:21*am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Jan 21, 10:51*am, "Steve B" wrote:

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. *And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

Steve

Not the ones I am familiar with. I dont know if there were another
type made. I do know for sure one ingredient they had in them, sand.

Jimmie

Wikipedia say they used black powder. Having cut more than a few open
I'm not sure I agree with that either unless it was a special blend
with a lot of sulfur.

Jimmie

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:51:14 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

Steve


I question that book if the "fusee" article is any indication of the
accuracy. They are what we call "highway flares" today.
My brother in law was a brakeman and always had a few in his trunk. He
also had torpedoes. In fact they used to sell them in a few states
before 1966 when all of the "good" firecrackers were banned (real
M-80s, cherry bombs etc)
I still say torpedoes were made with potassium chlorate and sulfur

I would say that they were made from all sorts of things. Many
manufacturers and many formulas. Including dynamite. But I do know that
just as we used to smash a whole roll of paper caps with a hammer and get a
big boom, a train wheel will make a big pop when it runs over anything that
has explosive potential.

As an afterstatement, they said that fusees were impossible to put out.
They are not. You just have to smack them a couple of times to loosen up
the flaming part and get it to fall out of the end, and then it breaks the
burning part off. Those things will still burn if you put them in water.

So, the article is not TOTALLY true.

Steve

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 11:21 am, JIMMIE wrote:
On Jan 21, 10:51 am, "Steve B" wrote:

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

Steve

Not the ones I am familiar with. I dont know if there were another
type made. I do know for sure one ingredient they had in them, sand.

Jimmie

Wikipedia say they used black powder. Having cut more than a few open
I'm not sure I agree with that either unless it was a special blend
with a lot of sulfur.

Jimmie

Jimmie, I bet there were a lot of manufacturers and recipes in the century
plus that they were used.

Steve

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Steve B"
wrote:
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator_(railway)

Even more to know. And no, Steve, they were not. Among other things,
railroad
torpedos existed almost 30 years before dynamite was invented.

Well, you said it, that does it. Forget about what the magazine article
said. They're just a bunch of experienced train buff people who know less
than you.

Steve

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:07:25 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:51:14 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


I question that book if the "fusee" article is any indication of the
accuracy. They are what we call "highway flares" today.
My brother in law was a brakeman and always had a few in his trunk. He
also had torpedoes. In fact they used to sell them in a few states
before 1966 when all of the "good" firecrackers were banned (real
M-80s, cherry bombs etc)
I still say torpedoes were made with potassium chlorate and sulfur
flaming part and get it to fall out of the end, and then it breaks the
burning part off. Those things will still burn if you put them in water.


"Caps" like you used in your Roy Rogers cap gun were potassium
chlorate and sulfur. That is also the explosive element in match
heads. (if you ever experimented with those you understand).
That is what the Unibomber used.

As a teenager I would mix sulfur and Potassium chlorate 50 /50 mix. Put in
small glass bottles and cork them. Take to shooting range and hit with 22
cal bullets. Made nice explosion. NOTE this is very dangerous to mix due to
pressure is used to detonate. Some people have been injured or killed by
trying to mix with a mortar & postal. I carefully mixed it on a sheet of
paper by tilting it back and forth until mixed. WW

On Jan 21, 1:15*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:07:25 -0800, "Steve B"





wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:51:14 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. *And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

Steve

I question that book if the "fusee" article is any indication of the
accuracy. They are what we call "highway flares" today.
My brother in law was a brakeman and always had a few in his trunk. He
also had torpedoes. In fact they used to sell them in a few states
before 1966 when all of the "good" firecrackers were banned (real
M-80s, cherry bombs etc)
I still say torpedoes were made with potassium chlorate and sulfur

I would say that they were made from all sorts of things. *Many
manufacturers and many formulas. *Including dynamite. * But I do know that
just as we used to smash a whole roll of paper caps with a hammer and get a
big boom, a train wheel will make a big pop when it runs over anything that
has explosive potential.

As an afterstatement, they said that fusees were impossible to put out.
They are not. *You just have to smack them a couple of times to loosen up
the flaming part and get it to fall out of the end, and then it breaks the
burning part off. *Those things will still burn if you put them in water.

So, the article is not TOTALLY true.

Steve

The problem with the dynamite idea is the brissance of nitroglycerine
is so high that it might shatter a railroad wheel. It had to be a low
explosive. I am also less than certain that crushing dynamite would
actually set it off.

Seems reasonable that it would not set it off, at least not
reliably. One of the big advantages of dynamite was how stable it
is and how difficult it is to set it off accidently. Just banging
it around won't set it off. Seems like there are a lot of other
formulations better suited to the application.

Another apparent inaccuracy from the same article that makes me
wonder:

"By carrying its own oxygen supply, like a rocket, a fusee burns very
bright and very hot. If you see a railroader holding a fusee in his
hand, he has either got good gloves or a fresh fusee that hasn't
warmed up yet. "


Yes, they burn very hot, but only right at the end where it is burning
and the heat doesn't transfer down the length very well. It would
have to be near the end for it to get so hot you couldn't hold it. A
bigger problem is that little flaming bits can spew off and land on
your hand while holding it, unless you avoid holding it upright. That
is likely what the gloves were needed for.




Most high explosives require a detonator. (AKA
dynamite cap) I fear they just use dynamite as a generic explosive
term.
"Caps" like you used in your Roy Rogers cap gun were potassium
chlorate and sulfur. That is also the explosive element in match
heads. (if you ever experimented with those you understand).
That is what the Unibomber used.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jan 21, 1:59*pm, wrote:
On Jan 21, 1:15*pm, wrote:



On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:07:25 -0800, "Steve B"

wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:51:14 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. *And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

Steve

I question that book if the "fusee" article is any indication of the
accuracy. They are what we call "highway flares" today.
My brother in law was a brakeman and always had a few in his trunk. He
also had torpedoes. In fact they used to sell them in a few states
before 1966 when all of the "good" firecrackers were banned (real
M-80s, cherry bombs etc)
I still say torpedoes were made with potassium chlorate and sulfur

I would say that they were made from all sorts of things. *Many
manufacturers and many formulas. *Including dynamite. * But I do know that
just as we used to smash a whole roll of paper caps with a hammer and get a
big boom, a train wheel will make a big pop when it runs over anything that
has explosive potential.

As an afterstatement, they said that fusees were impossible to put out..
They are not. *You just have to smack them a couple of times to loosen up
the flaming part and get it to fall out of the end, and then it breaks the
burning part off. *Those things will still burn if you put them in water.

So, the article is not TOTALLY true.

Steve

The problem with the dynamite idea is the brissance of nitroglycerine
is so high that it might shatter a railroad wheel. It had to be a low
explosive. I am also less than certain that crushing dynamite would
actually set it off.

Seems reasonable that it would not set it off, at least not
reliably. * *One of the big advantages of dynamite was how stable it
is and how difficult it is to set it off accidently. * *Just banging
it around won't set it off. *Seems like there are a lot of other
formulations better suited to the application.

Another apparent inaccuracy from the same article that makes me
wonder:

"By carrying its own oxygen supply, like a rocket, a fusee burns very
bright and very hot. If you see a railroader holding a fusee in his
hand, he has either got good gloves or a fresh fusee that hasn't
warmed up yet. "

Yes, they burn very hot, but only right at the end where it is burning
and the heat doesn't transfer down the length very well. * It would
have to be near the end for it to get so hot you couldn't hold it. * A
bigger problem is that little flaming bits can spew off and land on
your hand while holding it, unless you avoid holding it upright. *That
is likely what the gloves were needed for.

*Most high explosives require a detonator. (AKA

dynamite cap) I fear they just use dynamite as a generic explosive
term.
"Caps" like you used in your Roy Rogers cap gun were potassium
chlorate and sulfur. That is also the explosive element in match
heads. (if you ever experimented with those you understand).
That is what the Unibomber used.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have seen railroad men hang on to these things until they were
almost burned up.


Jimmie

In article , "Steve B" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Steve B"
wrote:
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator_(railway)

Even more to know. And no, Steve, they were not. Among other things, railroad
torpedos existed almost 30 years before dynamite was invented.

Well, you said it, that does it. Forget about what the magazine article
said. They're just a bunch of experienced train buff people who know less
than you.

Uhh, no, it's not *me* that said it, it's the authors of the article I cited.
Apparently you missed that.

Apparently you missed the fact that railroad torpedoes were patented in 1841,
and dynamite in 1867.

Apparently you believe that being a train buff automatically makes a person an
explosives expert too.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Steve B"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Steve B"
wrote:
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator_(railway)

Even more to know. And no, Steve, they were not. Among other things,
railroad
torpedos existed almost 30 years before dynamite was invented.

Well, you said it, that does it. Forget about what the magazine article
said. They're just a bunch of experienced train buff people who know less
than you.

Uhh, no, it's not *me* that said it, it's the authors of the article I
cited.
Apparently you missed that.

Apparently you missed the fact that railroad torpedoes were patented in
1841,
and dynamite in 1867.

Apparently you believe that being a train buff automatically makes a
person an
explosives expert too.

No, I just like to refer to people with more knowledge and experience than
me when I don't know it all.

Steve

On Jan 21, 1:32*pm, "WW" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:07:25 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:51:14 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:

I question that book if the "fusee" article is any indication of the
accuracy. They are what we call "highway flares" today.
My brother in law was a brakeman and always had a few in his trunk. He
also had torpedoes. In fact they used to sell them in a few states
before 1966 when all of the "good" firecrackers were banned (real
M-80s, cherry bombs etc)
I still say torpedoes were made with potassium chlorate and sulfur

flaming part and get it to fall out of the end, and then it breaks the

burning part off. *Those things will still burn if you put them in water.
"Caps" like you used in your Roy Rogers cap gun were potassium
chlorate and sulfur. That is also the explosive element in match
heads. (if you ever experimented with those you understand).
That is what the Unibomber used.

As a teenager I would mix sulfur and Potassium chlorate 50 /50 mix. Put in
small glass bottles and cork them. Take to shooting range and hit with 22
cal bullets. Made nice explosion. NOTE this is very dangerous to mix due to
pressure is used to detonate. Some people have been injured or killed by
trying to mix with a mortar & postal. I carefully mixed it on a sheet of
paper by tilting it back and forth until mixed. *WW- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think torpedoes and fusees both have similar chemical makeup, sulfur
and potassium chlorate, The torpedoes may have more oxidizer and the
fusees have a little strontium for color. I remember the local
druggist's kid mixing up sulfur with something and getting a little on
a hammer and smacking it against a piece of steel to set it off. You
could see the smoke and hear it pop but it wasnt much louder than the
steel and hammer hitting together.



Jimmie

In article , "Steve B" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Steve B"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Steve B"
wrote:
http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=213

All you need to know from Trains Magazine. And yes, Victoria, they were
made out of dynamite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator_(railway)

Even more to know. And no, Steve, they were not. Among other things,
railroad
torpedos existed almost 30 years before dynamite was invented.

Well, you said it, that does it. Forget about what the magazine article
said. They're just a bunch of experienced train buff people who know less
than you.

Uhh, no, it's not *me* that said it, it's the authors of the article I
cited.
Apparently you missed that.

Apparently you missed the fact that railroad torpedoes were patented in
1841,
and dynamite in 1867.

Apparently you believe that being a train buff automatically makes a
person an
explosives expert too.

No, I just like to refer to people with more knowledge and experience than
me when I don't know it all.

That's fine -- as long as you pick ones that know what they're talking about.
These guys don't appear to.

On 1/21/2010 6:54 PM Doug Miller spake thus:

In article , "Steve B"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Apparently you believe that being a train buff automatically
makes a person an explosives expert too.

No, I just like to refer to people with more knowledge and
experience than me when I don't know it all.

That's fine -- as long as you pick ones that know what they're
talking about. These guys don't appear to.

Agreed; after all, keep in mind this is from Kalmbach Publications,
publishers of /Model Railroader/, which, while it's the
largest-circulation model RR mag, is far from authoritative on many
things. The folks there are railfans, but not necessarily all that
knowledgable about railroad operations, and definitely not the world's
greatest railroad historians either.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

JIMMIE wrote:
On Jan 21, 1:32 pm, "WW" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:07:25 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:51:14 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:
I question that book if the "fusee" article is any indication of the
accuracy. They are what we call "highway flares" today.
My brother in law was a brakeman and always had a few in his trunk. He
also had torpedoes. In fact they used to sell them in a few states
before 1966 when all of the "good" firecrackers were banned (real
M-80s, cherry bombs etc)
I still say torpedoes were made with potassium chlorate and sulfur
flaming part and get it to fall out of the end, and then it breaks the

burning part off. Those things will still burn if you put them in water.
"Caps" like you used in your Roy Rogers cap gun were potassium
chlorate and sulfur. That is also the explosive element in match
heads. (if you ever experimented with those you understand).
That is what the Unibomber used.
As a teenager I would mix sulfur and Potassium chlorate 50 /50 mix. Put in
small glass bottles and cork them. Take to shooting range and hit with 22
cal bullets. Made nice explosion. NOTE this is very dangerous to mix due to
pressure is used to detonate. Some people have been injured or killed by
trying to mix with a mortar & postal. I carefully mixed it on a sheet of
paper by tilting it back and forth until mixed. WW- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think torpedoes and fusees both have similar chemical makeup, sulfur
and potassium chlorate, The torpedoes may have more oxidizer and the
fusees have a little strontium for color. I remember the local
druggist's kid mixing up sulfur with something and getting a little on
a hammer and smacking it against a piece of steel to set it off. You
could see the smoke and hear it pop but it wasnt much louder than the
steel and hammer hitting together.

Jimmie

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

TDD

On Jan 24, 10:51*pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-
wrote:
JIMMIE wrote:
On Jan 21, 1:32 pm, "WW" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:07:25 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:51:14 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:
I question that book if the "fusee" article is any indication of the
accuracy. They are what we call "highway flares" today.
My brother in law was a brakeman and always had a few in his trunk. He
also had torpedoes. In fact they used to sell them in a few states
before 1966 when all of the "good" firecrackers were banned (real
M-80s, cherry bombs etc)
I still say torpedoes were made with potassium chlorate and sulfur
flaming part and get it to fall out of the end, and then it breaks the

burning part off. *Those things will still burn if you put them in water.
"Caps" like you used in your Roy Rogers cap gun were potassium
chlorate and sulfur. That is also the explosive element in match
heads. (if you ever experimented with those you understand).
That is what the Unibomber used.
As a teenager I would mix sulfur and Potassium chlorate 50 /50 mix. Put in
small glass bottles and cork them. Take to shooting range and hit with 22
cal bullets. Made nice explosion. NOTE this is very dangerous to mix due to
pressure is used to detonate. Some people have been injured or killed by
trying to mix with a mortar & postal. I carefully mixed it on a sheet of
paper by tilting it back and forth until mixed. *WW- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think torpedoes and fusees both have similar chemical makeup, sulfur
and potassium chlorate, The torpedoes *may have more oxidizer and the
fusees have a little strontium for color. I remember the local
druggist's kid mixing up sulfur with something and getting a little on
a hammer and smacking it against a piece of steel to set it off. You
could see the smoke and hear it pop but it wasnt much louder than the
steel and hammer hitting together.

Jimmie

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I know it will burn, I have seen guys heat a meal with a plug of it.

Jimmie

On 1/24/2010 8:21 PM JIMMIE spake thus:

On Jan 24, 10:51 pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

I know it will burn, I have seen guys heat a meal with a plug of it.

So, what? MRE + C4 = chow?


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

The Daring Dufas wrote:
-snip-

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

The burning part is true. I've heated many a can of C-rats on C-4.
The 'exploding when stomped on' part is not as far as we could tell.
Give a bunch of 18yr olds too much time and they'll try anything.
[what's the worst that can happen we'd ask- 'Shave our heads and send
us to Vietnam?'. 'Blow a foot off and get sent home?' One had
happened and the other seemed like a fair option. ]

We stomped, dropped rocks on, and otherwise abused burning C-4 and
only made a mess-- no booms without detonators.

Jim

On Jan 25, 4:35*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
*The Daring Dufas wrote:
-snip-



I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

The burning part is true. *I've heated many a can of C-rats on C-4.
The 'exploding when stomped on' part is not as far as we could tell.
Give a bunch of 18yr olds too much time and they'll try anything.
[what's the worst that can happen we'd ask- 'Shave our heads and send
us to Vietnam?'. * *'Blow a foot off and get sent home?' * One had
happened and the other seemed like a fair option. ]

We stomped, dropped rocks on, and otherwise abused burning C-4 and
only made a mess-- no booms without detonators.

Jim

The thought of C-rats/MREs and C-4 seems more logical to use c-4 and a
detonator .

I knew it would burn, how about dynamite? My younger brother back
when he was about 12 found an old stick of it and lit it off. It
burned, didn't explode (lucky for him). I wasn't there, just going on
his word at the time.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:

On Jan 25, 4:35*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
-snip-

The burning part is true. *I've heated many a can of C-rats on C-4.

-snip-

The thought of C-rats/MREs and C-4 seems more logical to use c-4 and a
detonator .

Never had an MRE, but I liked most of the C-Rat meals. Ham & Limas,
and Beans and Balls were not my favs--- but with a little Tabasco most
of the others were pretty tasty- and you got filled up in a hurry so
you could get back to important stuff like 'science experiments.'g

I knew it would burn, how about dynamite? My younger brother back
when he was about 12 found an old stick of it and lit it off. It
burned, didn't explode (lucky for him). I wasn't there, just going on
his word at the time.

Never played with dynamite- but a friend [who now has blue freckles
all over his face and one arm] discovered that black powder is more
volatile than smokeless.

Jim

On Jan 25, 4:04*am, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/24/2010 8:21 PM JIMMIE spake thus:

On Jan 24, 10:51 pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

I know it will burn, I have seen guys heat a meal with a plug of it.

So, what? MRE + C4 = chow?

--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

Are you talking about those devices that could be affixed to the rail
track, so that when the lead engine went over it it would explode
loudly thus warning the locomotive crew there was a problem ahead;
washout, landslide, broken bridge, snow blockage etc.
Also useful in very heavy fog; and they could be affixed some distance
back up the track, by the section-man, who was then free go down the
track and see what could be done about about the problem.
Just curious.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote


I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

TDD

C4 was commonly used in Viet Nam for cooking. No danger unless it was
detonated.

Steve

"terry" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 4:04 am, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 1/24/2010 8:21 PM JIMMIE spake thus:

On Jan 24, 10:51 pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

I know it will burn, I have seen guys heat a meal with a plug of it.

So, what? MRE + C4 = chow?

--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

Are you talking about those devices that could be affixed to the rail
track, so that when the lead engine went over it it would explode
loudly thus warning the locomotive crew there was a problem ahead;
washout, landslide, broken bridge, snow blockage etc.
Also useful in very heavy fog; and they could be affixed some distance
back up the track, by the section-man, who was then free go down the
track and see what could be done about about the problem.
Just curious.

Comment: Yes, Terry. At one time made of dynamite.

Steve

"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 4:35 am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
-snip-



I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

The burning part is true. I've heated many a can of C-rats on C-4.
The 'exploding when stomped on' part is not as far as we could tell.
Give a bunch of 18yr olds too much time and they'll try anything.
[what's the worst that can happen we'd ask- 'Shave our heads and send
us to Vietnam?'. 'Blow a foot off and get sent home?' One had
happened and the other seemed like a fair option. ]

We stomped, dropped rocks on, and otherwise abused burning C-4 and
only made a mess-- no booms without detonators.

Jim

The thought of C-rats/MREs and C-4 seems more logical to use c-4 and a
detonator .

I knew it would burn, how about dynamite? My younger brother back
when he was about 12 found an old stick of it and lit it off. It
burned, didn't explode (lucky for him). I wasn't there, just going on
his word at the time.

Harry K

There are many terms used to describe "boom", or produce a shock wave.
Explode, detonate, deflagrate, conflagrate, and others. It all has to do
with the rate at which a substance will burn rapidly. A cloud of gas can
ignite and make a "boom". It is rated in feet per second. IIRC, the speed
of sound is one measure mark milestone that divides classifications. Things
which go POW will burn if you just spread it along, as black powder, instead
of confining it in a container. A high order explosive that burns at 24,000
fps will take one second to go 24,000 feet. Black powder, which burns
slower would take much longer, and actually "burn" along a line instead of
exploding to produce a shock wave. Google detonation speed or read
http://www.economy-point.org/d/detonation-speed.html and it will describe it
better than I can.

Steve

Harry K wrote:
On Jan 25, 4:35 am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
-snip-



I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.
The burning part is true. I've heated many a can of C-rats on C-4.
The 'exploding when stomped on' part is not as far as we could tell.
Give a bunch of 18yr olds too much time and they'll try anything.
[what's the worst that can happen we'd ask- 'Shave our heads and send
us to Vietnam?'. 'Blow a foot off and get sent home?' One had
happened and the other seemed like a fair option. ]

We stomped, dropped rocks on, and otherwise abused burning C-4 and
only made a mess-- no booms without detonators.

Jim

The thought of C-rats/MREs and C-4 seems more logical to use c-4 and a
detonator .

I knew it would burn, how about dynamite? My younger brother back
when he was about 12 found an old stick of it and lit it off. It
burned, didn't explode (lucky for him). I wasn't there, just going on
his word at the time.

Harry K

Burning is one way to dispose of dynamite. You need to be real careful
there is no blasting cap in it.

A lot (?all) of these *high* explosives - go off by a shock wave
propagating through the explosive, not by a chemical reaction
propagating through (like gunpowder). The whole high explosive goes off
at essentially the same instant - giving gfretwell's word for the
(other) day: brisance.

One of the hazards of dynamite is old dynamite can have the
nitroglycerin separate out. That makes handling it very hazardous. Would
be another reason not to use dynamite in torpedos, that can hide in odd
corners around a railroad.

--
bud--

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:35:10 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote Re Railroad torpedos:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
-snip-

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

The burning part is true. I've heated many a can of C-rats on C-4.
The 'exploding when stomped on' part is not as far as we could tell.
Give a bunch of 18yr olds too much time and they'll try anything.
[what's the worst that can happen we'd ask- 'Shave our heads and send
us to Vietnam?'. 'Blow a foot off and get sent home?' One had
happened and the other seemed like a fair option. ]

We stomped, dropped rocks on, and otherwise abused burning C-4 and
only made a mess-- no booms without detonators.

The detonation velocity of C-4 is approximately 24000 fps. I don't
think you can hit it with a rock going that fast.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

In article , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:35:10 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote Re Railroad torpedos:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
-snip-

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

The burning part is true. I've heated many a can of C-rats on C-4.
The 'exploding when stomped on' part is not as far as we could tell.
Give a bunch of 18yr olds too much time and they'll try anything.
[what's the worst that can happen we'd ask- 'Shave our heads and send
us to Vietnam?'. 'Blow a foot off and get sent home?' One had
happened and the other seemed like a fair option. ]

We stomped, dropped rocks on, and otherwise abused burning C-4 and
only made a mess-- no booms without detonators.

The detonation velocity of C-4 is approximately 24000 fps. I don't
think you can hit it with a rock going that fast.

Mach 20+ ? Yeah, probably not. g

On Jan 25, 7:39*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message

...
On Jan 25, 4:35 am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:





The Daring Dufas wrote:
-snip-

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

The burning part is true. I've heated many a can of C-rats on C-4.
The 'exploding when stomped on' part is not as far as we could tell.
Give a bunch of 18yr olds too much time and they'll try anything.
[what's the worst that can happen we'd ask- 'Shave our heads and send
us to Vietnam?'. 'Blow a foot off and get sent home?' One had
happened and the other seemed like a fair option. ]

We stomped, dropped rocks on, and otherwise abused burning C-4 and
only made a mess-- no booms without detonators.

Jim

The thought of C-rats/MREs and C-4 seems more logical to use c-4 and a
detonator .

I knew it would burn, how about dynamite? *My younger brother back
when he was about 12 found an old stick of it and lit it off. *It
burned, didn't explode (lucky for him). *I wasn't there, just going on
his word at the time.

Harry K

There are many terms used to describe "boom", or produce a shock wave.
Explode, detonate, deflagrate, conflagrate, and others. *It all has to do
with the rate at which a substance will burn rapidly. *A cloud of gas can
ignite and make a "boom". *It is rated in feet per second. *IIRC, the speed
of sound is one measure mark milestone that divides classifications. *Things
which go POW will burn if you just spread it along, as black powder, instead
of confining it in a container. *A high order explosive that burns at 24,000
fps will take one second to go 24,000 feet. *Black powder, which burns
slower would take much longer, and actually "burn" along a line instead of
exploding to produce a shock wave. *Google detonation speed or readhttp://www.economy-point.org/d/detonation-speed.htmland it will describe it
better than I can.

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm well aware of all that. I was using the 'burn' as in ther
vernacular and I doubt any one reading it was confused.

Harry K

On Jan 26, 12:40*am, Harry K wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:39*am, "Steve B" wrote:



"Harry K" wrote in message

....
On Jan 25, 4:35 am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
-snip-

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

The burning part is true. I've heated many a can of C-rats on C-4.
The 'exploding when stomped on' part is not as far as we could tell.
Give a bunch of 18yr olds too much time and they'll try anything.
[what's the worst that can happen we'd ask- 'Shave our heads and send
us to Vietnam?'. 'Blow a foot off and get sent home?' One had
happened and the other seemed like a fair option. ]

We stomped, dropped rocks on, and otherwise abused burning C-4 and
only made a mess-- no booms without detonators.

Jim

The thought of C-rats/MREs and C-4 seems more logical to use c-4 and a
detonator .

I knew it would burn, how about dynamite? *My younger brother back
when he was about 12 found an old stick of it and lit it off. *It
burned, didn't explode (lucky for him). *I wasn't there, just going on
his word at the time.

Harry K

There are many terms used to describe "boom", or produce a shock wave.
Explode, detonate, deflagrate, conflagrate, and others. *It all has to do
with the rate at which a substance will burn rapidly. *A cloud of gas can
ignite and make a "boom". *It is rated in feet per second. *IIRC, the speed
of sound is one measure mark milestone that divides classifications. *Things
which go POW will burn if you just spread it along, as black powder, instead
of confining it in a container. *A high order explosive that burns at 24,000
fps will take one second to go 24,000 feet. *Black powder, which burns
slower would take much longer, and actually "burn" along a line instead of
exploding to produce a shock wave. *Google detonation speed or readhttp://www.economy-point.org/d/detonation-speed.htmlandit will describe it
better than I can.

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm well aware of all that. I was using the 'burn' as in ther
vernacular and I doubt any one reading it was confused.

Harry K

When my grandfather passed away we found a brown apothecary bottle in
his trunk that had the word nitroglycerin embossed on the bottle. Only
after the police and fire department checked it out did we find out it
was pills. That was some either brave or very foolhearty souls that
opened that bottle.

On Jan 25, 10:46*pm, JIMMIE wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:40*am, Harry K wrote:





On Jan 25, 7:39*am, "Steve B" wrote:

"Harry K" wrote in message

....
On Jan 25, 4:35 am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
-snip-

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

The burning part is true. I've heated many a can of C-rats on C-4.
The 'exploding when stomped on' part is not as far as we could tell..
Give a bunch of 18yr olds too much time and they'll try anything.
[what's the worst that can happen we'd ask- 'Shave our heads and send
us to Vietnam?'. 'Blow a foot off and get sent home?' One had
happened and the other seemed like a fair option. ]

We stomped, dropped rocks on, and otherwise abused burning C-4 and
only made a mess-- no booms without detonators.

Jim

The thought of C-rats/MREs and C-4 seems more logical to use c-4 and a
detonator .

I knew it would burn, how about dynamite? *My younger brother back
when he was about 12 found an old stick of it and lit it off. *It
burned, didn't explode (lucky for him). *I wasn't there, just going on
his word at the time.

Harry K

There are many terms used to describe "boom", or produce a shock wave..
Explode, detonate, deflagrate, conflagrate, and others. *It all has to do
with the rate at which a substance will burn rapidly. *A cloud of gas can
ignite and make a "boom". *It is rated in feet per second. *IIRC, the speed
of sound is one measure mark milestone that divides classifications. *Things
which go POW will burn if you just spread it along, as black powder, instead
of confining it in a container. *A high order explosive that burns at 24,000
fps will take one second to go 24,000 feet. *Black powder, which burns
slower would take much longer, and actually "burn" along a line instead of
exploding to produce a shock wave. *Google detonation speed or readhttp://www.economy-point.org/d/detonation-speed.htmlanditwill describe it
better than I can.

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm well aware of all that. I was using the 'burn' as in ther
vernacular and I doubt any one reading it was confused.

Harry K

When my grandfather passed away we found a brown apothecary bottle in
his trunk that had the word nitroglycerin embossed on the bottle. Only
after the police and fire department checked it out did we find out it
was pills. That was some either brave or very foolhearty souls that
opened that bottle.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe they shook it first and heard the pills rattle

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote

I'm well aware of all that. I was using the 'burn' as in ther
vernacular and I doubt any one reading it was confused.

Harry K

New here, huh?

"JIMMIE" wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 12:40 am, Harry K wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:39 am, "Steve B" wrote:



"Harry K" wrote in message

...
On Jan 25, 4:35 am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
-snip-

I've had some military vets tell me about setting C-4 plastic
explosive
on fire and it would just burn unless you were to stomp on it, in
which
case it would explode. I don't know if it's true or not.

The burning part is true. I've heated many a can of C-rats on C-4.
The 'exploding when stomped on' part is not as far as we could tell.
Give a bunch of 18yr olds too much time and they'll try anything.
[what's the worst that can happen we'd ask- 'Shave our heads and send
us to Vietnam?'. 'Blow a foot off and get sent home?' One had
happened and the other seemed like a fair option. ]

We stomped, dropped rocks on, and otherwise abused burning C-4 and
only made a mess-- no booms without detonators.

Jim

The thought of C-rats/MREs and C-4 seems more logical to use c-4 and a
detonator .

I knew it would burn, how about dynamite? My younger brother back
when he was about 12 found an old stick of it and lit it off. It
burned, didn't explode (lucky for him). I wasn't there, just going on
his word at the time.

Harry K

There are many terms used to describe "boom", or produce a shock wave.
Explode, detonate, deflagrate, conflagrate, and others. It all has to do
with the rate at which a substance will burn rapidly. A cloud of gas can
ignite and make a "boom". It is rated in feet per second. IIRC, the
speed
of sound is one measure mark milestone that divides classifications.
Things
which go POW will burn if you just spread it along, as black powder,
instead
of confining it in a container. A high order explosive that burns at
24,000
fps will take one second to go 24,000 feet. Black powder, which burns
slower would take much longer, and actually "burn" along a line instead
of
exploding to produce a shock wave. Google detonation speed or
readhttp://www.economy-point.org/d/detonation-speed.htmlandit will
describe it
better than I can.

Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm well aware of all that. I was using the 'burn' as in ther
vernacular and I doubt any one reading it was confused.

Harry K

When my grandfather passed away we found a brown apothecary bottle in
his trunk that had the word nitroglycerin embossed on the bottle. Only
after the police and fire department checked it out did we find out it
was pills. That was some either brave or very foolhearty souls that
opened that bottle.

Reply:

I take nitroglycerine, and have for ten years off and on. It is very easy
to ascertain that medical nitroglycerine is not explosive. True
nitroglycerine is liquid. It was mixed with sawdust to make explosives a
little more stable to withstand handling. It didn't always work. But,
finding an old jar of it would set off a series of events to make sure it
was some new medicine, and not some old nitroglycerine.

Steve

On Jan 26, 9:20*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote

I'm well aware of all that. I was using the 'burn' as in ther
vernacular and I doubt any one reading it was confused.

Harry K

New here, huh?

Not if you figure being here since the 'Deja News" days is new.

Harry K

"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 9:20 am, "Steve B" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote

I'm well aware of all that. I was using the 'burn' as in ther
vernacular and I doubt any one reading it was confused.

Harry K

New here, huh?

Not if you figure being here since the 'Deja News" days is new.

Harry K

Been here that long, and still haven't caught on, eh?

On Jan 27, 8:56*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message

...
On Jan 26, 9:20 am, "Steve B" wrote:

"Harry K" wrote

I'm well aware of all that. I was using the 'burn' as in ther
vernacular and I doubt any one reading it was confused.

Harry K

New here, huh?

Not if you figure being here since the 'Deja News" days is new.

Harry K

Been here that long, and still haven't caught on, eh?

Do youi have a point? Yes, I am well aware of the tendency for a
pedant to show off. I am assuming (yes I know) that you know what a
pedant is.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
On Jan 27, 8:56 am, "Steve B" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message

...
On Jan 26, 9:20 am, "Steve B" wrote:

"Harry K" wrote
I'm well aware of all that. I was using the 'burn' as in ther
vernacular and I doubt any one reading it was confused.
Harry K
New here, huh?
Not if you figure being here since the 'Deja News" days is new.

Harry K

Been here that long, and still haven't caught on, eh?

Do youi have a point? Yes, I am well aware of the tendency for a
pedant to show off. I am assuming (yes I know) that you know what a
pedant is.

Harry K

That describes some building inspectors I know. *snicker*

TDD