alibaba Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 hi, newbie here wants to ask a question: i wanted to know what would happen if i have an enclosed plastic canister (bottle/tube) 40 % full of pure acetone. what would be the effect if i dip this tube in halfway in warm water with temerature56 C( 56 C - as much as acetonels boiling point): which of the following will occur:1. the acetone will boil and vaporise to the upper part of the tube where it it cooler?2. the boiling acetone will build up alot of pressure and blow open my bottle?3. something else? this is for a project which i intend to make but i wanted to ask those chemists out there who are familiar before i do something stupid? thank you in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al93535 Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 1: I sure wouldn't do that. 2: It would most likely condense at the cooler top of the bottle *IF* your bottle is strong enough to contain the pressure. 3: This doesn't deserve its own thread by any account. A post in the random thread would have been the best bet. But we will leave this topic open for a few days. Don't open anymore topics that don't need to be started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lja Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I don't think it sounds like a very good idea. I'm betting you're going to get acetone and broken glass all over. If you are trying to make one of those little bubbling liquid filled tubes like you see on some Christmas lights, try methylene chloride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 OK, i'm definitely going to methylene chloride for my purpose. thank you for the assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hst45 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 This thread also looks just like the one you started in newbie questions, except you asked about methylene chloride instead of acetone. One thread asking the question about two substances would suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 While this is still open: No it would not explode, unless the vessel is extremely weak. At 56C the vapour pressure is equal to the atmospheric pressure. If the top is cooler, it will condense there. If not, it will build perhaps 1PSI internally. I've kept reactions with alcohols in closed mini booze bottles in baths on the stove, several degree above their boilling points, too lazy to rig up a reflux condenser. If the bottles look out of the water bath far enough, you get exactly that: reflux. To burst a soda or coke bottle you need far above 100PSI. This is what, 170C for water, and 100C for acetoner? But yes, go with DCM, it boils lower, and is NON-FLAMMABLE. Just don't huff it in case it does vent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarezWally Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Give it a few months and quite a bit of your acetone will be gone, as for the rest I cant tell you if it will be full of water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miech Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 You won't end up with a bottle of water, as the evaporation of the acetone speeds up de evaporation of any water in there as well. By the time the bottle is empty, all water in there is gone as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hst45 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Please also note that it's a bad idea to leave the open acetone bottle indoors as any source of spark will be a problem. (FAE) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mumbles Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I thought for a FAE it needed to be a solid fuel. Eh, the warning is still warranted and valid. Anyway, yes, water will enter the mouth of the flask as the Acetone is evaporating. Assuming there is some humidity in the air of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSidewinder Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 If, by FAE, you mean Fuel-Air Explosive, that's an aerosolized flammable liquid ignited by a secondary explosion. Acetone would probably work, but simple evaporation into open air until you reach the minimal explosive percentage isn't a FAE. That takes a much higher fuel percentage than can be had by evaporation. The fuel must be dispersed by mechanical means. Normally, that's a small explosive followed by a larger one that ignites the (now very fuel-rich) Fuel-Air mixture. Hyperbaric munitions (FAE "Bunker Busters") work the same. If you've seen the Discovery/History Channel series on weaponry, they have one episode where it's demonstrated just how nasty these weapons can be.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyboy Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) If, by FAE, you mean Fuel-Air Explosive, that's an aerosolized flammable liquid ignited by a secondary explosion. Almost right on the money, it can be a liquid or a solid powder like Al powder for instance (which is the most used as far as I know). In my experimenting with FAE's I found out that Acetone is a potent fuel with pretty good tolerance in the fuel/air ratio regime. The worst part of the weapon would be that it can suffocate people that are rather far away from the blast itself since it sucks air back to fill the void created by the blast (using up oxygen=combining to make solid waste products). Edited January 13, 2009 by andyboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSidewinder Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Hmmm.... I thought the Daisy Cutter was a shaped HE charge (TNT? C4?), which focused its blast parallel to the ground. It makes a good-sized Landing Zone (LZ) in dense jungle in about one second, for those who don't what that beast was. Oh, and they use hyperbarics at cave mouths in Afghanistan for EXACTLY that purpose: to suffocate the vermin cowering inside. The show I mentioned demonstrated that weapon, too. Nasty. Just nasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyboy Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 This might be the case if you were in a cave, for instance. Unless I'm mistaken if you were in the open, and "rather far away", more air would be pulled along to replace the momentary low pressure. You would feel the wind but not be suffocated in the process. Didn't the legendary Daisy Cutter use Al as part of the fuel? It wouldn't replace your lungs though: http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/200...sia3058_txt.htm I also recall that the daisy cutter was Al loaded but it's not an FAE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyco_1322 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Most of the fuels used in todays FAE's are toxic or in any sense really bad for your health. So if you don't get die, and survive, you are likely to become pretty sick from the aftermath and fall out. Or so I read the other day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 WAAAAY off topic - "nuke in a closed tube." The FAE discussion made me think of the Davy Crockett. For those unaware, the Davy Crockett is the smallest nuclear weapon ever made, and was fielded in the late '50's in an attempt to reinforce the boys guarding Western Europe. It was a battlefield weapon, and was designed to wipe out tank formations and other concentrated enemy forces. The FAE bombs described blur the line between conventional and nuclear. The Davy Crockett, mounted on what appears to be a simple recoilless rifle:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/DavyCrockettBomb.jpg/200px-DavyCrockettBomb.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGM Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) I can't imagine that a recoilless rifle with a nuke on the end would be very comfortable to fire, but those warheads were SMALL. It used the W54 warhead, the firecracker of nuclear weapons. It had a yield of less than a kiloton (about five times the one used in Oklahoma city), and the area subject to the blast was uninhabitable for about two days. The rocket it was mounted on in the Crockett was spin stabilized, so all of you making stingers are working with nuclear technology . Edited January 23, 2009 by LGM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSidewinder Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 A nuke on a stick. Now I've seen everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts