Morons

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Well now I am glad we came to a conclusion here. So, we agree so far that:

1. A depleted Uranium sabot round will form plasma, when it strikes the target.
2. It will suck people out of the target, but not the street.
3. It does melt the armor, but not vaporize it.

Is this right? I assumed, in my limited knowledge that since plasma is a higher energy state than gas, that gas would also be created. I talked to my chemistry teacher, he basically said that it does form plasma, but doesn't vaporize the armor, as I said. He also said people are skeptical, because they think of Star Wars when you mention plasma.

1. Correct
2. No, people will be blown out of the target. To be sucked out, the air pressure would have to be GREATLY reduced outside by some means. When pressure inside is increased greatly, it's considered "Blown out."
3. Correct. It does melt a small amount of the metal where it penetrates and splatters it around inside the tank. And at that temperature it doesn't take much to do a lot of damage.

There will be a small amount of gas created, but not enough to consider it "vaporizing the armor." THAT's the claim that invoked the Star Wars/Star Trek parallel.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edkowal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098
So you know more about it than the Army, I see.

I stand by my statements. Ask someone who knows what they're talking about. For example, ask Tom Diehl.

-Ed

I did!

[Anonymous]

Well now I am glad we came to a conclusion here. So, we agree so far that:

1. A depleted Uranium sabot round will form plasma, when it strikes the target.
2. It will suck people out of the target, but not the street.
3. It does melt the armor, but not vaporize it.

Is this right? I assumed, in my limited knowledge that since plasma is a higher energy state than gas, that gas would also be created. I talked to my chemistry teacher, he basically said that it does form plasma, but doesn't vaporize the armor, as I said. He also said people are skeptical, because they think of Star Wars when you mention plasma.

[TomDiehl]

Very simple:

On page 1, you claim the plasma is formed by the friction of the round travelling through the air. I ask if it's a DU or Tungsten penetrator to see if you have any idea what you're talking about.

On page 4, after consulting with a "tank commander" you now state the plasma is formed by the friction of the round penetrating the armor plate (finally accurate) but persist on stating that it "vaporizes the armor". Armor is a solid, plasma is half way between solid and liquid, vapor is gas. That probably won't be possible until we develop the phase cannons (a la Star Trek)

Still havn't seen how they create such a wake they "suck people out into the street."

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

Quoted from Lotus098 entry on page 1:

Those sabots create a vacumn behind them, they also move so fast plasma forms ont the front of the round it vaproizes armor as it hits. I saw a video where three guys are hidding behind a corner. The tank fires a sabot round down the road not even at these guys. Well, they get sucked right out onto the street in front of the tank, their Gihad ended real quick too.

Back to my entry:

In that Loooonnnggg winded physics dissertation, I still fail to find any reference to how it "vaporizes armor as it hits" or "The tank fires a sabot round down the road not even at these guys. Well, they get sucked right out onto the street in front of the tank."

Too much embellishing of the facts takes them to the point of inaccuracy.

Seems like my "feeble mind" is a result of your inability to read.

[V]I told you people three times, I made a mistake on the first post. I did some research. We aren't arguing this, I know what you have quoted from me is wrong; I made a mistake. So like any good scientist I consulted experts, and did some research. So far an atomic engineer, two marines, several television shows, and 9 places on the Internet, saying sabot rounds do form plasma when impacting a target at a close enough range.
DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!
I am sorry I posted the first time without checking.

I would like to hear you expert opinion of my plasma evidence, instead of your trying to destroy my credibility based on one post I admitted I was wrong. I will print this out and show it to my chemistry teacher. Some wind should be created, similar to a semi driving by at 70MPH, but not like I said.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

You aren't arguing with me, you are arguing against the scientific fact. I will ask my chemistry teacher tomorrow, and see what he says, if he says you are right I might admit I am wrong. I will let you know tomorrow.

Perhaps you should print this topic out and have him read what you've posted, especially the first entries where you were so far off base. The later entries do not support your earlier claims of "vaproizing armor" or "sucking people out into the street in the wake of the round"

[TomDiehl]

Quoted from Lotus098 entry on page 1:

Those sabots create a vacumn behind them, they also move so fast plasma forms ont the front of the round it vaproizes armor as it hits. I saw a video where three guys are hidding behind a corner. The tank fires a sabot round down the road not even at these guys. Well, they get sucked right out onto the street in front of the tank, their Gihad ended real quick too.

Back to my entry:

In that Loooonnnggg winded physics dissertation, I still fail to find any reference to how it "vaporizes armor as it hits" or "The tank fires a sabot round down the road not even at these guys. Well, they get sucked right out onto the street in front of the tank."

Too much embellishing of the facts takes them to the point of inaccuracy.

Seems like my "feeble mind" is a result of your inability to read.

[chad thomas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CopCarSS

Does anyone else find it at least mildly interesting that we've arrived here, a million miles from anything remotely railroad related, due to the following quasi-joke?

QUOTE: This kinda reminds me of a story from Iraq. Story goes, a M1A1 tank crew noticed an insurgent aiming a rifle at them and managed to fire a shot off . Now what happened next is .

A. tank crew poopied in their pants.
B. Insurgent poopied in his pants.
C. insurgent ran like the coward he was.
D. Tank crew returned fire with a SABO round / thus ending the problem.

The answer is D. I saw the video on Military.com to comfirm this story.

I might have to save this thread. Could be useful for doctoral dissertation work should I ever pursue psychology. I can see it now: The Dynamics of Extratopical Discussion in an Internet Based Forum. It would of course be served with the prerequisite popcorn!
[(-D]

[(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D][(-D] Yup.

[CopCarSS]

Does anyone else find it at least mildly interesting that we've arrived here, a million miles from anything remotely railroad related, due to the following quasi-joke?

QUOTE: This kinda reminds me of a story from Iraq. Story goes, a M1A1 tank crew noticed an insurgent aiming a rifle at them and managed to fire a shot off . Now what happened next is .

A. tank crew poopied in their pants.
B. Insurgent poopied in his pants.
C. insurgent ran like the coward he was.
D. Tank crew returned fire with a SABO round / thus ending the problem.

The answer is D. I saw the video on Military.com to comfirm this story.

I might have to save this thread. Could be useful for doctoral dissertation work should I ever pursue psychology. I can see it now: The Dynamics of Extratopical Discussion in an Internet Based Forum. It would of course be served with the prerequisite popcorn!
[(-D]

[Anonymous]

You mean to tell me that all of those medical studies have it wrong. The reason they sound familiar is it is the same quote from the Army testing at Aberdeen. They get their information from the Army. It is readily available information. I found 9 places that list it. I challenge you to find even one official (not just a forum) internet site saying the plasma effect is a hoax, and that it can’t happen. Plasma is matter heated beyond the gas state, why is it so impossible? How fast do you experts calculate it would have to be traveling? To expand on my proof, some of them are forums, which have very little credibility, since they are just yahoos me. However a good number are information on weapons and studies done about depleted uranium. A television show can be wrong, a web site can be wrong, but how many can be wrong, the numbers are not in your favor?

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

You aren't arguing with me, you are arguing against the scientific fact. I will ask my chemistry teacher tomorrow, and see what he says, if he says you are right I might admit I am wrong. I will let you know tomorrow.

Well to borrow a phrase I hear often from your age group...."Whatever..."

[edkowal]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098
So you know more about it than the Army, I see.

Glad to see that you agree with me.

What I was attempting to show you was that you cannot take all of your education from the internet.

The reason that some of those quotations from different websites "sound familiar" is that they are the EXACT SAME quotation, but posted to different websites. That does not make the statement that was made any truer than the first time it's posted.

If a statement which is incorrect is posted on a fairly technical topic, it is still wrong, no matter how many times it gets quoted by others. Studies have been made about the public's level of understanding of scientific concepts, and even things which people should have direct experience of. In general, people misunderstand scientific concepts.

I stand by my statements. Ask someone who knows what they're talking about. For example, ask Tom Diehl.

-Ed

[Anonymous]

You aren't arguing with me, you are arguing against the scientific fact. I will ask my chemistry teacher tomorrow, and see what he says, if he says you are right I might admit I am wrong. I will let you know tomorrow.

[dharmon]

Gosh what were we thinking...to challenge the teenage intellect....everyone knows they're smarter....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edkowal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

So, you are saying all the other sources, the Army, an atomic engineer, and the Marines know less than you do. Interesting[wow] I can find some more proof to please you guys, but you two are right and the world is wrong, so why agrue.

I have a B.S. in chemistry, a Ph.D. in biochemistry, and years of experience in scientific research. If you ask any other chemist about the statements that I've made here, I believe that they will agree with me.

-Ed

So you know more about it than the Army, I see.

[Anonymous]

Here is some more proof of the well documented plasma effect.
Uranium can be engineered to be “self-sharpening” so that when it hits a target, it retains its punching point as material erodes off the warhead (titanium and tungsten will not do this). Uranium’s molecular structure can re-formed, using metallurgical and “nano-technologies” to deliver a selected range of ballistic features, including kinetic, thermal, pyrophoric, liquid metal and high-pressure/high-heat, plasma effects. Uranium is a readily available metal, cheap to produce and is in abundance in DOE’s, DOD’s and their weapon’s contractors’ stockpiles. Uranium has been designated a high priority material for scientific research on new weapons and “stockpile re-cycling” as a strategic and capital asset into multiple military applications. From: http://www.umrc.net/os/AfghanistanOEF.asp
This should start to sound very familiar, if you people would read this stuff.
Uranium can be engineered to be "self-sharpening" so that when it hits a target, it retains its punching point as material erodes off the warhead (titanium and tungsten will not do this). Uranium¼s molecular structure can re-formed, using metallurgical and "nano-technologies" to deliver a selected range of ballistic features, including kinetic, thermal, pyrophoric, liquid metal and high-pressure/high-heat, plasma effects. Uranium is a readily available metal, cheap to produce and is in abundance in DOE's, DOD's and their weapon's contractors' stockpiles. Uranium has been designated a high priority material for scientific research on new weapons and "stockpile re-cycling" as a strategic and capital asset into multiple military applications. From: http://www.peace-actionnm.org/issues/new/uranium.html
Ahem, it would seem to anyone, not so stubborn as to ignore the evidence, that it certainly does happen.
[i] Uranium can be engineered to be “self-sharpening” so that when it hits a target, it retains its punching point as material erodes off the warhead (titanium and tungsten will not do this). Uranium’s molecular structure can re-formed, using metallurgical and “nano-technologies” to deliver a selected range of ballistic features, including kinetic, thermal, pyrophoric, liquid metal and high-pressure/high-heat, plasma effects. Uranium is a readily available metal, cheap to produce and is in abundance in DOE’s, DOD’s and their weapon’s contractors’ stockpiles. Uranium has been designated a high priority material for scientific research on new weapons and “stockpile re-cycling” as a strategic and capital asset into multiple military applications. From: http://www.interactorg.com/Uranium%20Medical%20Research%20Centre.htm
Or this, at least it is worded differently.
[i]The Sabot Round is a truly elegant piece of engineering. Once the round has exited the Barrel, the weapon is purely Kinetic. No additonal Guidance and no conventional explosives. One of the kinetic effects of the now fast flying Depleted Uranium (D-38) 'Lawn Dart', is when it hits the armor plate of, say a Russian Built T-72 tank, it makes a loud 'Thunk', then penetrates the armor plate with such force that the D-38 Rod turns into white hot, radioactive Plasma... which immediately incinerates the contents of the target. Normally you'd see an almost immedite explosion of any onboard ordinance, but if the target has no ordinance you could see a much less spectaular (Though no less effective) result.... From: http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/480-289.asp

Now I can dig up some more, or can we admit that it does?

[edkowal]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

So, you are saying all the other sources, the Army, an atomic engineer, and the Marines know less than you do. Interesting[wow] I can find some more proof to please you guys, but you two are right and the world is wrong, so why agrue.

I have a B.S. in chemistry, a Ph.D. in biochemistry, and years of experience in scientific research. If you ask any other chemist about the statements that I've made here, I believe that they will agree with me.

-Ed

[Anonymous]

So, you are saying all the other sources, the Army, an atomic engineer, and the Marines know less than you do. Interesting[wow] I can find some more proof to please you guys, but you two are right and the world is wrong, so why agrue.

[edkowal]

Just because something has been mentioned in a special on the Discovery or Military channel on cable TV, does NOT mean that it is error free. There have been many instances of material on these specials having errors in them.

As to some of the quotations which are being bandied about here:

From Global Research's website: "Uranium's molecular structure can (be) re-formed, using metallurgical and "nano-technologies"... " This statement is in error. Uranium doesn't HAVE a molecular structure. It is not a molecule. It is an atom. It has an atomic structure. If they are claiming that their technologies are reforming uranium's atomic structure, well, they are mistaken, because you can't do that using metallurgical or "nano-technoloies." You can only do that using nuclear technologies. What they probably meant was that they are re-forming or modifying the metal's CRYSTAL structure. That you can do. But it is incredibly sloppy for them to make the statement that they did. As well as being incorrect.

From the encyclopedia: "... the impact and subsequent release of heat energy causes it to disintegrate to dust and combust when it reaches air..."

This is combustion, also known as burning. That is, the metal itself burns, creating heat and hot gases. One of the components will be vaporized metal. Although it's hot, lethal and very damaging, vaporized metal is not a plasma. It would be the metallic equivalent of steam, which is vaporized water. This is a lot different than forming a plasma. If you are making the two equivalent, that is similar to saying that wood when it burns creates a plasma. Not true, and, neither does it happen when uranium or other metals burn.

Many of the posts which are on Tim Blair's blogsite contradict each other on the technical details. This is true even for people who share the same basic viewpoint on that website. And, if I recall from my recent viewing of that site, the quote which was used in this discussion was later modified by its author later on in a subsequent posting. The people on that site are not necessarily expert in that field.

One of the reasons that depleted uranium is used is that it is denser than other metals. Since the kinetic energy delivered by a projectile depends on its mass, the greater the mass, the greater the kinetic energy delivered to the target, even if the impact velocity is the same. The 8% difference in efficiency of depleted uranium versus tungsten may be entirely due to the greater density.

-Ed

[Anonymous]

Well, grab your popcorn during the intermision here.

[Anonymous]

If it doesn’t strain you seemly feeble mind I will confuse you with some facts.
The SABOT round forming plasma common knowledge, it has been mentioned on the Discovery and the Military channel on television.. This was discovered form the Army testing grounds in Aberdeen, Maryland. The plasma is unique to depleted uranium, and only when moving as fast as the sabot rounds do. First of all I would like to discuss a little bit of the physics behind this. Matter can be in for states; solid, liquid, gas, and plasma, an extremely high energy state. Plasma in on the inside of some neon lights, and lighting. When a sabot round hits a target and the found is moving fast enough, it strikes the target creating enormous amounts of friction, it melts trough the armor and the tip of the round turns to plasma, burning into the enemy, that’s why it is so darn effective. This doesn’t happen to other metals because they are not as dense. I talked to my grandfather, who is a atomic engineer for the Navy, he said that the plasma effect was logical. He is a real expert on physics.


If you can read; study the following.

Uranium can be engineered to be “self-sharpening” so that when it hits a target, it retains its punching point as material erodes off the warhead (titanium and tungsten will not do this). Uranium’s molecular structure can re-formed, using metallurgical and “nano-technologies” to deliver a selected range of ballistic features, including kinetic, thermal, pyrophoric, liquid metal and high-pressure/high-heat, plasma effects. Uranium is a readily available metal, cheap to produce and is in abundance in DOE’s, DOD’s and their weapon’s contractors’ stockpiles. Uranium has been designated a high priority material for scientific research on new weapons and “stockpile re-cycling” as a strategic and capital asset into multiple military applications.
This is from: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/UMR306B.html

It is a well-known fact on both sides of the argument for the safety of using depleted uranium.
The impact of a kinetic energy weapon turns part of the the armor and all of the projectile into plasma and a shock wave with a vector towards the target. This plasma jet and shock wave, in turn, penetrates inside the hull by blowing a larger hole. The resultant shock wave, plasma, and metal fragments cause some or all of the ammo to sympathetically detonate, and, not so incidentally, kill the crew.
This is from: http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/its_all_about_soil
This is also from a solider, but I guess all the people in the military and the real experts in Aberdeen are wrong!

As said it is a known fact to both sides of the argument.
According to the US Army the single-shot kill ratio of DU penetrator rounds into heavy armored vehicles such as tanks is approximately 8% greater than conventional tungsten cored penetrators. Against light armor that ratio is significantly higher due to the pyrophoric nature of DU - it basically converts on impact into a superheated plasma jet that burns through the armor.
This is from: http://www.thehypertribe.net/forum/printthread.php?t=8011&pp=100 Who doesn’t even believe they should be used.

Even according to the Encyclopedia.
Depleted uranium is favoured for flechette construction due to two particular properties: being self-sharpening and pyrophoric. On impact with a hard target, such as an armoured vehicle, the nose of the flechette rod fractures in such a way that it remains sharp. Further, the impact and subsequent release of heat energy causes it to disintegrate to dust and combust when it reaches air (compare to ferrocerium). Against an armoured vehicle this is devastating, piercing the hull to create an extremely hot ball of dust and gas in the interior, killing or injuring the crew and igniting fuel and ammunition.
Did I not say it melted through armor?

If you need any more here is some more proof.
Uranium can be engineered to be "self-sharpening" so that when it hits a target, it retains its punching point as material erodes off the warhead (titanium and tungsten will not do this). Uranium's molecular structure can re-formed, using metallurgical and "nano-technologies" to deliver a selected range of ballistic features, including kinetic, thermal, pyrophoric, liquid metal and high-pressure/high-heat, plasma effects. Uranium is a readily available metal, cheap to produce and is in abundance in DOE's, DOD's and their weapon's contractors' stockpiles. Uranium has been designated a high priority material for scientific research on new weapons and "stockpile re-cycling" as a strategic and capital asset into multiple military applications.

Or even read this about aircraft.
A-10 Thunderbolt
Designed in the late 1970s, this aircraft was built around a single anti-tank weapon, the largest airborne gun in existence. It fires extremely high velocity three cm. diameter Depleted Uranium (DU) tipped shells. These shells turn to plasma (an iodized gas of protons and neutrons) which burns streaming holes through the hulls of armored vehicles.
This is from: http://coat.ncf.ca/air_show/links/background.htm




If what I have presented isn’t enough, just get on Yahoo, and do some searching you can find as many articles about it as you want. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=depleted+uranium+penetration+plasma&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-tab-web-t-297&b=1
Or if you want, just pretend it doesn’t even happen.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Here check this out. http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/apfsds.htm
Particularity this part
The sub-projectile's hyper-velocity ensures that it strikes its target with devestating impact. By using very dense materials in the sub-projectile the stored kinetic energy is magnified greatly. The terminal effect of the sub-projectile striking the target sees huge kinetic energy release. In miliseconds the sub-projectile punches through the target armour, instantaneously generating massive heat and pressure. As the long rod penetrator enters the vehicle friction with the armour plate creates burning incandescent spall which sprays the interior. The burning spall has an explosive effect. What do you say "burning incandescent spall" is? So, I think I will listen to Marine veteran, at least he has been right before.

"Burning Incadescent Spall" is a bit different than "vaporize the armor plate" as you stated earlier, and the point I disputed.

Of course I understand, your mind is made up and I shouldn't try to confuse you with the facts.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Here check this out. http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/apfsds.htm
Particularity thispart
The sub-projectile's hyper-velocity ensures that it strikes its target with devestating impact. By using very dense materials in the sub-projectile the stored kinetic energy is magnified greatly. The terminal effect of the sub-projectile striking the target sees huge kinetic energy release. In miliseconds the sub-projectile punches through the target armour, instantaneously generating massive heat and pressure. As the long rod penetrator enters the vehicle friction with the armour plate creates burning incandescent spall which sprays the interior. The burning spall has an explosive effect. What do you say "burning incandescent spall" is? So, I think I will listen to Marine veteran, at least he has been right before.

No one here has disputed this. The impact of the penetrating rod is what causes the damage. The vacuum (if it passes completely through the vehicle) and "spall" are by products of the impact and pentration, not the cause. There is no plasma burning through the armor. It is a rod punching through, simple as that and physics of that collision create the effects ie...... X amount of mass at Y veocity, focused on a small area of impact to create intense pressure resulting in structural failure of the armor at that point.....I'm pretty sure that this is what Tom has been saying all along. I know I have.

To put in a railroad perspective, it's similiar to the weight of a railcar at any given time being supported on the eight points where the wheels touch the rail. All that weight supported by a few inches of rail. It's fine if it's sitting there, but lift the car up and drop it on the rail and the rail will be dented. Drop it from higher and the rail will bend or break. It's the same concept, takien to a higher degree of focused pressure such that additional consequeces occur as a result of impact.


And by the way...my occupation...Naval Aviator......a bit familiar with weaponeering.

[Anonymous]

Here check this out. http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/apfsds.htm
Particularity this part
The sub-projectile's hyper-velocity ensures that it strikes its target with devestating impact. By using very dense materials in the sub-projectile the stored kinetic energy is magnified greatly. The terminal effect of the sub-projectile striking the target sees huge kinetic energy release. In miliseconds the sub-projectile punches through the target armour, instantaneously generating massive heat and pressure. As the long rod penetrator enters the vehicle friction with the armour plate creates burning incandescent spall which sprays the interior. The burning spall has an explosive effect. What do you say "burning incandescent spall" is? So, I think I will listen to Marine veteran, at least he has been right before.

[Anonymous]

I was wrong, I talked to him, it doesn’t form from air friction, but it does form when it hits a target. He did a lot more than "pull the trigger" he was in command of four tanks. His gunner pulled the trigger. He was given briefings on the weapons; these were not shown to everyone. Now I will see if I can find some proof you will believe that the round traveling at twice the speed of a .270 hunting rifle literally melts right through armor, forming plasma in the process.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

If you must know this tank commander, was one of the few (if not the only one) to ace the test to become one. He was a Gunnery Sergeant, due to eyesight, he couldn’t become an officer. Though he served a position of one in the Gulf-War. He was a platoon commander. Well, it does go that fast, maybe it is one of things they don't tell normal people, like the tank only has a top speed a 45MPH. What's your source that says it doesn't, and are going to fight everything I say? Can somebody tell me what LMFAO means, and LOL?

[dharmon]

Tom,

1. I don't think he knows what Picatinny is or what you do.......

2. I think he may be confusing APFSDS with some of the older shaped penetrator charge concepts...

Dan

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas

QUOTE: Originally posted by CopCarSS



Sorry Elliot, couldn't resist.

I was wondering where Chris went with the popcorn machine.

Didn't I tell you on the other post. [:D]

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Ok, checked with my tank commander. The SABOT (proper spelling) round, travles at 5,200 feet per second. Plasma forms on the end of the round as it hits the target, vaporizing and melting the armor.

Tell your "tank commander" (I hope we're not talking a video game here) that his physics just doesn't wash.

1. What temperature is required to "vaproize and melt the armor" on contact?

2. What muzzle velocity would be required to attain this temperature from simply air friction (hint: a HECK of a lot more than 5200 feet per second)

It's not much fun arguing a point with someone with a concrete mind.

And really messed up "facts."