C-1 Revisited
by Johnny
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
Regarding C-1 Explosives
After spending 12 years in the Army as an
explosives instructor in an EOD/Engineer unit, I
regret to tell you that your claims of this
explosive being 150 times more powerful than TNT
and 10% more powerful than C4 are seriously in
error.
First off, the designation C1....the composition
of this series of compounds has little effect in
regards to explosive mixture(s), it pertains to
the amount of pliable plastizer that will
function in all types of weather from extreme
cold to searing hot.
That's why the earlier designation of C1,C2,C3
don't exist anymore...C4 is based on an ethylene
Glycol type binder much like the all temperature
antifreeze for your car.
It was found to be the perfect balance of binder
to explosive for all applications.
Next, if it was more powerful than C4 by 10% than
it would only be 54% more powerful than TNT.
This can be substaniated by the known RE factor
of C4 being 1.34 with an RDX base and TNT's RE
being 1.00...check any 5-25 Demolitions manual.
|
