China has developed new generation powder that is 100x more powerful than TNT

[Beast]

This is from the university where Prof. Hu works, the source of the original article. The university is a public university hence it is government owned.

http://gjs.njust.edu.cn/19/34/c2317a137524/page.htm

And no I have no research paper to prove this, my question to you is how can you conclude this is false since no explosive data was published?

They claim its false becos of their jealousy.

 

[Han Patriot]

They claim its fake becos of their inferiority and jealousy.

I am not saying everything is true but I want to know why he says it's false when nothing was revealed about the explosive power of that material. If he can prove it wrong, I am fine.

 

[Shajida Khan]

This is from the university where Prof. Hu works, the source of the original article. The university is a public university hence it is government owned.

http://gjs.njust.edu.cn/19/34/c2317a137524/page.htm

And no I have no research paper to prove this, my question to you is how can you conclude this is false since no explosive data was published?

Please read the following in your link :-

'Source: Sina blog 2017-1-27'
or
'来源：新浪博客 2017-1-27'

This is not an article written by the fine folks working in this university. Infact, look at the date on which this was posted 2017-02-04 . It appears in a number of places even before this date :-

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5d9c6d9c0102wr3j.html (2017-01-28)

Also this is under '高教动态' or higher education news. Seems like a syndication of articles originating from outside the university. I doubt anyone from the university will stand behind the veracity of this article, they are more of a messenger here not the author of the article.

Once more, I do not doubt the folks working in the university a bit here but this is not their authorship. They will certainly not be using pictures from Evangelion -- a 90s Japanese anime show -- in their authorship like this.

Now, coming to your second point. There is simple reason behind this.

a. We have previous published research which tells us that explosive power (energy density) of a material which is theoretically most powerful is around 7.5-8x of TNT.

b. The burden of proof always lie on the one making the spectacular claim like 10-100x.

Imagine a journalist claiming that they know someone has discovered a perpetual motion machine. You will certainly doubt it, specially if that 'someone' are not stating it in their published paper. This is similar.

So I have every reason to doubt that explosive power of this material is in that range.

A blog?

Now do you understand why I am doubting this claim of 10-100x? Because it originated from a blog, perhaps. And every one here is going ga - ga over it.

He can't prove it. That is the main thing. He is making answer based on racist stereotyping. No facts or data to back anything.

I guess you are not privy to the concept of burden of proof. In science the burden of proof lies on the party who makes spectecular claims like 10-100x TNT power material. Default position is that of skepticism.

 

[Han Patriot]

Please read the following in your link :-

'Source: Sina blog 2017-1-27'
or
'来源：新浪博客 2017-1-27'

This is not an article written by the fine folks working in this university. Infact, look at the date on which this was posted 2017-02-04 . It appears in a number of places even before this date :-

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5d9c6d9c0102wr3j.html (2017-01-28)

Also this is under '高教动态' or higher education news. Seems like a syndication of articles originating from outside the university. I doubt anyone from the university will stand behind the veracity of this article, they are more of a messenger here not the author of the article.

Once more, I do not doubt the folks working in the university a bit here but this is not their authorship. They will certainly not be using pictures from Evangelion -- a 90s Japanese anime show -- in their authorship like this.

Now, coming to your second point. There is simple reason behind this.

a. We have previous published research which tells us that explosive power (energy density) of a material which is theoretically most powerful is around 7.5-8x of TNT.

b. The burden of proof always lie on the one making the spectacular claim like 10-100x.

Imagine a journalist claiming that they know someone has discovered a perpetual motion machine. You will certainly doubt it, specially if that 'someone' are not stating it in their published paper. This is similar.

So I have every reason to doubt that explosive power of this material is in that range.


Now do you understand why I am doubting this claim of 10-100x? Because it originated from a blog, perhaps. And every one here is going ga - ga over it.


I guess you are not privy to the concept of burden of proof. In science the burden of proof lies on the party who makes spectecular claims like 10-100x TNT power material. Default position is that of skepticism.

Sajida,

This group actually synthesize two compounds of pentazole.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6323/374
(N5)6(H3O)3(NH4)4Cl


http://www.chemistryviews.org/detai...sis_of_Stable_Cobalt_Pentazole_Complexes.html
Co(N5)2(H2O)4•4 H2O.

The team showed that Co(N5)2(H2O)4•4 H2O had a higher energy density and produces stronger explosions than (N5)6(H3O)3(NH4)4Cl. This complex has a high percentage of nitrogen and has potential applications in environmentally friendly and high-performing materials for propellants and explosives.

This means they tested the compound and knew the explosive power but are not publishing the results due to certain reasons.

 

[Shajida Khan]

Sajida,

This group actually synthesize two compounds of pentazole.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6323/374
(N5)6(H3O)3(NH4)4Cl


http://www.chemistryviews.org/detai...sis_of_Stable_Cobalt_Pentazole_Complexes.html
Co(N5)2(H2O)4•4 H2O.

I am well aware of both the compounds. First was a ammonium chloride based complex and second was a a cobalt based metal complex. There were two papers one from 2016 or early 2017 IIRC and another was from February or March 2017. I am well aware of both of them. However neither of these compound are what Chinese military enthusiasts and OP of this thread is making them to be. I.E. a compound 10-100x more powerful than TNT ( in terms of energy released). There is a very very fundamental reason behind it. As I mentioned there is already an established research on what can be theoretical highest possible energy dense substance (in terms of conventional chemical energy). There is further damning proof,

Look at the list of all the known High Explosives :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent#RE_factor_examples

The highest we have till now 2.38 TNT Equivalent by weight. ie. Octanitrocobane. Noteworthy point while a lot of high explosive are in a range of 1.5-2.38 TNT Eq. NONE is beyond that.

The only way to go beyond this limit -- till now -- is by cheating a bit. i.e. pulling some reactant from outside the bomb. In other words something like a Fuel Air Bomb which uses atmospheric oxygen there by increasing TNT Eq. Russian FOAB, for example has TNT Eq. greater than 4.5 . But then FOAB 'explosive' / Fuel would be impossible to use as a propellant without carrying a large amount of oxygen as well. This is why a gun will work in space but FOAB will NOT.

Now coming to the point of intent of these papers. The intent IMHO is academic in nature ie. to publish a valid and important research done by Chinese scientists. Most probably, they will use this in the future to prepare a high explosive for various uses and propellant for rockets etc. Also, possibly they will patent it, using these publications to show their noval work / innovation.

Also, If indeed this explosive were 10x TNT, as a researcher it would make sense to me to do two things :-

1. Either publish it and highlight this fact 10x RE TNT as it would have been the biggest achievement. It will challenge the theoretical model used to predict maximum possible explosive power -- opening door for further research and more impact.

2. Or, if it is too important, then do not publish at all and keep it a secret research. Like silk was once a Chinese secret for very very long time.

Publish partial results makes no sense. As in the future when your adversaries realize, they will have enough information in those papers to reconstruct your experiments. Those papers btw, are detailed enough for someone to verify their research by re-doing it.

All in all I think, this research, possibly will in the future progress to a new high explosive, a very very important discovery -- if it happens -- because high explosive are worth their weight in more than gold. This one may a good yield comparable or even higher than likes of CL-20 but its going to be no where in the range of 10x TNT. Still it will be important to have an indigenous high explosive with a completely home developed manufacturing process.

 

[Han Patriot]

I am well aware of both the compounds. First was a ammonium chloride based complex and second was a a cobalt based metal complex. There were two papers one from 2016 or early 2017 IIRC and another was from February or March 2017. I am well aware of both of them. However neither of these compound are what Chinese military enthusiasts and OP of this thread is making them to be. I.E. a compound 10-100x more powerful than TNT ( in terms of energy released). There is a very very fundamental reason behind it. As I mentioned there is already an established research on what can be theoretical highest possible energy dense substance (in terms of conventional chemical energy). There is further damning proof,

Look at the list of all the known High Explosives :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent#RE_factor_examples

The highest we have till now 2.38 TNT Equivalent by weight. ie. Octanitrocobane. Noteworthy point while a lot of high explosive are in a range of 1.5-2.38 TNT Eq. NONE is beyond that.

The only way to go beyond this limit -- till now -- is by cheating a bit. i.e. pulling some reactant from outside the bomb. In other words something like a Fuel Air Bomb which uses atmospheric oxygen there by increasing TNT Eq. Russian FOAB, for example has TNT Eq. greater than 4.5 . But then FOAB 'explosive' / Fuel would be impossible to use as a propellant without carrying a large amount of oxygen as well. This is why a gun will work in space but FOAB will NOT.

Now coming to the point of intent of these papers. The intent IMHO is academic in nature ie. to publish a valid and important research done by Chinese scientists. Most probably, they will use this in the future to prepare a high explosive for various uses and propellant for rockets etc. Also, possibly they will patent it, using these publications to show their noval work / innovation.

Also, If indeed this explosive were 10x TNT, as a researcher it would make sense to me to do two things :-

1. Either publish it and highlight this fact 10x RE TNT as it would have been the biggest achievement. It will challenge the theoretical model used to predict maximum possible explosive power -- opening door for further research and more impact.

2. Or, if it is too important, then do not publish at all and keep it a secret research. Like silk was once a Chinese secret for very very long time.

Publish partial results makes no sense. As in the future when your adversaries realize, they will have enough information in those papers to reconstruct your experiments. Those papers btw, are detailed enough for someone to verify their research by re-doing it.

All in all I think, this research, possibly will in the future progress to a new high explosive, a very very important discovery -- if it happens -- because high explosive are worth their weight in more than gold. This one may a good yield comparable or even higher than likes of CL-20 but its going to be no where in the range of 10x TNT. Still it will be important to have an indigenous high explosive with a completely home developed manufacturing process.

I can't argue on the explosive power, but what I am trying to highlight here is they knew the explosive potential, whether it's the 10-100x claim, nobody knows. I believe time will tell.

 

[Shajida Khan]

I can't argue on the explosive power, but what I am trying to highlight here is they knew the explosive potential, whether it's the 10-100x claim, nobody knows. I believe time will tell.

I am not denying its potential for a high explosive. The range 10-100x is most probably impossible as there is enough circumstantial data and argument to support otherwise.

 

[Han Patriot]

I am not denying its potential for a high explosive. The range 10-100x is most probably impossible as there is enough circumstantial data and argument to support otherwise.

You have the right to your own opinion and I shall respect that. Let us wait for future developments.

 

[samsara]

I wish that China will do some real demonstration of this 'Grandmother / Grandfather of all bomb" to give the free world some idea of China's true firepower capability.

No need for such deadly Demonstration Effects as staged by the USA recently in its live testing fields in the caves of Afghan costing hundreds of cavemen lives there... just sufficient to do the demo at the quiet Taklamakan Desert or Gobi Desert furnished with some quality, revealing footage

Not going to happen with this regime

The Corporate Mainstream Media and the giant mouthpieces of the "Free World" are well known for their affinities to label any government in the world not of their likeness with such sickening demeanor and arrogant self-righteous qualifier: "REGIME", regardless of their political systems.

Though it's noticeable they never use such "regime" attribute to address those governments in the Gulf Countries (GCC)... [though now I ain't quite sure on how will they address the govt in Doha in foreseeable future...]

@Jlaw, You can't be an adherent of such media, can you? just feel weird seeing the flag you're raising here

 

[Kabira]

Too late, India already developed this in 2005BC.

 

[idune]

was there a real life demonstration of this new discovery? If not, there is an excellent test bed waiting on China - Sikkim border.