Many years ago, and still, I read about many of the great thinkers. Including Archimedes, Tesla, Einstein, Pauling and a host of others. The one thread that ran through all of their thinking was that if it was not “simple in its elegance,” throw it away and start over.” I did that, many many times. I threw away ideas left and right, the answer I sought was not presenting the elegance I imagined those other great minds would approve of. This has been a (10) year quest.
Over the past year and a half, perhaps two years, I have had the honor to share my ideas with a Nobel Laureate. I will, because of our agreement not name him within this story. Its a matter of honor and promise. Those are two words that mean a lot to me personally.
In considering writing this story, I have taken National Security and Troop Safety into more sleepless nights consideration than I care to remember. However, it is evident to me after approaching multiple private companies as well as government agencies and other groups, that the only way possible to get the ball rolling towards saving those whom go in harms way on our behalf is to get off the fence. I am going to divulge part of the overall “secret.”
I will try not to bore anyone with the difference between an explosion and a detonation. There is a difference. One is gaseous, the other is the direct reaction of a specific mixture of chemicals. The highest “generally known” velocity of an explosive (even if “exotic”) is roughly 39,900 fps. However, the majority of military explosive move or propogate between 20,000 fps and 26,290 fps. At 20k, a shock-wave will move at 17.77 times the speed of sound. At 26,290 fps, the wave will move at 23.36 x the speed of sound.
To further break this down, 26,290 fps is equivalent to 8,763 yards per second or 0.00002672913139129 the speed of light or 8.013192 km/sec (just as a further reference, 8.013192 km/sec is equivalent to 17,925 mph). Interestingly enough, that is roughly the equivalent of how fast satellites move above the earth in space.
Without any further discussion, allow me to present some evidence.
Please note: The Graphs representing many hours of mathematical interpretation and “known theories” are shown below this commentary. After seeing these, I will present further evidence and explain how the initiation of a detonation may be sensed, and, how it is dealt with.
to: Mr. David Woroner, CEO, Survival Consultants International, LLC)
May 2, 2010
The plots below describe the interaction between a blast wave from 20 pounds of high explosive at distance of 30 feet with a directed blast such as might come from a large cannon firing a blank. The horizontal axis scale is 60 feet. The picture is unrealistic in that the cannon is set back too far from the incoming blast wave and the cannon blast is assumed completely directed with the cannon blast being going on continuously. I thought that there would always be a reflected shock and set up conditions that I thought would prevent a reflected shock if it could ever be prevented. I was surprised to find from these calculations that a reflected shock was not present. The condition of a very powerful sustained cannon blank is completely unrealistic. I believe that the reason that the reflected shock is avoided is that the cannon blast is backed up by a constant blast wind (particle velocity) throughout while in the expansion of a spherical blast the shock regime becomes thin. Although the conditions of the blast wave are realistic at its front and the pressure thickness is realistic, I made the particle velocity (the blast wind) die off as rapidly as the pressure behind the shock front. I am guessing that may be wrong, but I do not have a better model for the particle velocity.
You will notice in the figures below that a small wave comes off the blast wave back towards the origin of the blast. This is impossible and suggests that my assumptions about the profile of the particle velocity are wrong. It is true that at greater distances from the blast that the pressure behind a blast shock drops below atmospheric for a small distance. (You will also notice that the cannon blast wave develops some wiggles. I think these are artifacts of the numerical calculations. My reference book Leveque Finite Volume Methods for Hyperbolic Problems has similar fig 15.8 p346) Where this leaves us is that this is still a crazy idea, but one that is probably not physically impossible even as I am afraid it is likely to remain practically impossible.
There are 3 quantities that describe the fluid properties of air: density, pressure, and particle velocity. What is being plotted below are q(1), which is density, q(2), which is momentum per unit volume (particle velocity x density) and q(3), which is energy per unit volume which is pressure divided by gamma-1+ .5 times particle velocity squared times density. gamma is the heat capacity at constant pressure divided by the heat capacity at constant volume. For air it is 1.4. (dimensionless). The thing to look for is whether q(2) has any negative values after the waves collide because that would correspond to flow towards the region behind the cannon. You will see that that never happens.
Each figure has the results of two calculations of the same thing differing only in how finely the region is divided up in the calculation. They agree rather closely.
Notice the unusual stationary discontinuity near 0.4. This is a contact discontinuity. I think there is no pressure discontinuity.
Tommorow, I will address specifically my intent and methodology for creating “shear, deflagration and degradation” of the oncoming offensive wave.
Sincerely, David Woroner, CEO Survival Consultants International, LLC. http://www.survivalconsultants.com
PART 2 of 2
I would like to tell folks that Ive not been in a “cocoon,” I’ve lived this nightmare. I was hit by an IED, then in another situation, took grenade fragments in both lower legs, been shot twice and stabbed completely through my forearm. I need NOT discuss the outcomes of these events as I’m still here.
A quote from one of the many, many physicists Ive spoken with;
