Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kerimov Aug 28 2010, 04:41 AM

People argue as to whether or not police and security forces should be loading SnS rounds as standard gear. The argument is that a tiny taser like this is overpowered and will take Shadowrunners down for the count every time.

They can't.

As police or security forces, their interest is to protect their clients' interests, which includes the general buildings they work out of. Shadowrunners are a threat to that, and frequently carry explosives but are too cheap to shell out for non-conductive armor. The risk of this happening is more than enough to cause them to load rounds that don't explode, as normal ammunition won't set off plastic dynamite.

Prisons will use SnS as standard gear, and military bases may as well, but anyone else is contractually obligated not to.

Posted by: Critias Aug 28 2010, 04:46 AM

Well, that's one way of looking at it, I guess.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 28 2010, 05:20 AM

Nah.

Posted by: Badmoodguy88 Aug 28 2010, 06:06 AM

Plausible fluff if you also make it clear that anyone carrying unprotected plastic explosives will blow up when hit with enough electricity.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 28 2010, 06:15 AM

Plausibility depends very much on the explosives. Plastic, no. Maybe if they had black powder.

I guess it's a possible house rule, albeit a very weird one. Do shadowrunners really even carry 'raw' explosives all that much?

Posted by: Simon Kerimov Aug 28 2010, 08:07 AM

There are a number of references in the "Things I can't do in Shadowrun Anymore" that make me think a number of runners do carry explosives regularly. A half kilo of cutting charges can do some amazing things if it doesn't detonate inside your load-out vest.

Posted by: Sengir Aug 28 2010, 11:35 AM

1.) You don't carry explosives with the detonators in place. Besides safety reasons you often don't know where to put the detonator until the charge is placed and tamped.
2.) So let's suppose the charges the runners are carrying loosely with them go off. The result will be a bloody carnage and the area will require some renovation, but unless America's love for drywall has led to corp HQs being built from that stuff (or the runners were carrying a literal truckload) the building should remain sound. Bringing down a building, or at least causing enough structural damage so that it has to be brought down, requires more than a few semtex packs loosely placed in a random corridor.

Posted by: Badmoodguy88 Aug 28 2010, 12:01 PM

What you say is very true but it could still work as plausible fluff. What is in regulations does not always make sense.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Aug 28 2010, 01:19 PM

Tasers are legal to own and carry for civilians. Runners that carry munitions that'll explode if they get in a scuffle with common people are very, very stupid.

Posted by: suoq Aug 28 2010, 01:28 PM

I don't understand why the stick-n-shock would set off explosive.

A blasting cap requires .5 (cheap) to 1.5 (military) amps to blow. The amps in a military blasting charge should kill a human.

A taser should not be delivering more than .004 amps. A violet wand is usually less than .001 amps. My violet wand cranked up will still arc over 1/4" and hurt like a mother. I don't want to think about my violet wand putting out .005 amps. I really don't. (I've never played with or been hit by a taser. I don't really have any desire to.)

So the proposed regulation says "don't use a .005 amp taser because it might set off explosives that need .5 amps". That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Edit: For purposes of this discussion, a taser, a violet wand, and a tesla coil are all basically the same thing. LOTS of voltage, very little current. A blasting cap requires a good chunk of current.

Edit: I'd like to add http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2005/08-August/20-Aug-2005/FBO-00873949.htm which has an interesting spec regarding how much current.

Posted by: Sengir Aug 28 2010, 02:31 PM

Remember that Shadowrun "blasting caps" are more electronic than electric, complete with wireless connection...yet another reason to keep the things seperate from the actual explosives.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 28 2010, 02:48 PM

That doesn't seem like a very convincing reason, Sengir, but you're dead on about the second part: it's the detonators that blow, not the explosives. Also, it's direct hits; at the very least, your bombs are in a pocket or something, which means no direct hits, period.

Posted by: tagz Aug 28 2010, 02:52 PM

I work with electricity on a daily basis. While what you say about the current usage of those devices is true, Amperage is not controlled like that.

A high voltage device still has the potential for high amperage if it encounters low resistance. The average resistance of a human being is anywhere between 1000Ω and 100,000Ω depending on circumstances and body chemistry. The resistivity of copper is (20 °C) 16.78 nΩ·m, making it the second most conductive metal. A high voltage source that finds such a low resistance path to ground will immediately create a extremely powerful current. Obviously, a taser will have an overcurrent protective device such as fuse or trip breaker, but it will not cut the current until it already has exceeded it's rating, be that by .5Amps or 100Amps.

What does that mean? That yes, it's possible for a taser to produce enough amperage for a moment to set off detonation charges.

Is this likely? Not in normal circumstances, extremely unlikely. But, when you throw in cyberlimbs and wires running through body... the likelyhood increases. At least enough that it may have happened once and prompted some politically motivated, reflexive law to a media hyped scenario.

Posted by: suoq Aug 28 2010, 03:35 PM

Again, I don't understand. There's a device (stick-n-shock) that is assumed to have two tiny tips which will, upon contact, have current flowing across them like a taser. Are you saying the current is then running from one tip of the ammo through the cyberlimbs and wires in the body to one connector on the detonation cap (which was dangerously close to the explosives), out the other connector to a ground (instead of the other tip of the ammo, perhaps due to some malfunction in the assembly of the ammo?) and in doing so exceeded the necessary amperage for enough time to activate the charge in the detonator, exploding the explosives?

I don't work with electronics every day, but I do have a background in it. Please explain to me how this is actually happening so I can understand.

Also, given the same scenario, wouldn't a person not carrying explosives simply die from that same amperage for that same amount of time stopping the heart (given the same cyberlimbs and wires running though the body explanation).

I don't see how it can be non-lethal AND still set of detonators. The current over time to stop the heart is less than the current over time to set off a detonator.

Posted by: CanRay Aug 28 2010, 03:38 PM

All I can remember from my work with electricity is flying back and a major urge to never get hit by a taser.

Posted by: tagz Aug 28 2010, 03:52 PM

An overcurrent protection device is not instantaneous. It has a lag time, dependent on the amount of current, in the fractions of seconds. In the instance of a .5Amp instantaneous fuse receiving 1Amp of current may take up to .1 seconds to blow. Instantaneous to you and me, that's about the human reaction speed, but in the realm of circuitry and electrical components it's long enough for drastic and unexpected effects to happen 10 to 100 times over.

Again, so unlikely it really doesn't matter. It's like the odds of getting struck by lightning, going to another town, and getting stuck again... in the same hour. But, you increase the odds a lot when this imaginary person is chasing a storm with a lightning rod (a metaphor for a cybered Runner i suppose).

As for the heart part, well, in this case it HAS to run through human resistance, whereas the explosives there is the possibility of it running through objects that are condusive to current flow. And for the example of wires in the person... well, i doubt anyone really wants to play a game where a commonly used non-lethal round is lethal to YOU because of an upgrade you broke the bank on.

Posted by: tagz Aug 28 2010, 04:17 PM

Anyhow, we're derailing the thread. Personally, I think that the concept works ok as fluff. Like I said previously it only takes one instance of something to make a stupid policy. How many bombs have we found in shoes at the airport? Very few I'd wager, but all it took was one guy trying to light his feet on fire on a plane and now we all have to stop and X-ray our shoes now.

Though I doubt with different corporations they would ALL adopt such a policy. I mean, at the very least the corp that manufactures SnS will still use them if for no other reason then the savings on using their own product.

Personally, I think other fluff might work better. Like for instance a botched recall. Lets say a large amount of SnS was shipped out faulty, lets say hitting with too much voltage or bad overcurrent devices. A couple people get hospitolized. The manufacturers at first tried to hide the fact until it became a media disaster. Recall on the bad ammo, but public trust of the ammo decreased and therefor you see it a little less then what one might expect given the crazy goodness of the ammo.

Posted by: suoq Aug 28 2010, 04:18 PM

deleted. was written while the post above was being written and I don't see the point now. If someone wants their NPCs to not use S-n-S, just don't use S-n-S.

Posted by: CanRay Aug 28 2010, 05:09 PM

You double your odds if you're screaming, "All Gods are wankers!" at the top of your lungs.

Posted by: Faradon Aug 28 2010, 06:36 PM

In the game I run SnS really has almost no chance of setting of an explosive kept in a storage device on a runner. Some of my runners have gone as far as to buy bags with a non-conductive material coating them (like a ruthenium coating for an explosives satchel) due to these fears.

The only times I'd really worry about an explosive detonating is from either physical spells (lightning bolt vs plastic explosive and fireball vs TNT) or intentional destruction (SnS being fired with an aimed shot modifier at the plastic explosive in the runner's hand.)

Even under the above circumstances I tend to apply "D&D" logic to such things. If a player is hit with a lightning bolt that hit him by 1-2 net successes and soaks some, I tend not to worry about such side effects. If the attacker beat them on the initial roll by more than 4 net successes (crit hit style) or there was a glitch / critical glich on the player's dodge or resistance roll... then that might be another story.

Posted by: Simon Kerimov Aug 28 2010, 08:29 PM

suoq has a good point as far as the current is concerned.

http://www.defenseproducts101.com/taser_M18_L.html discharges 50,000 volts at about 25 watts.

Watts = Volts*Current
Current = 25 watts/50,000 volts
Current = 0.0005 amps or 0.5 miliamps.

I can't find the resistance of plastic explosives (for some reason no one likes to publish details about explosives where terrorists or gamers can get to them. go figure), but we can use the 0.5 amps to figure out what the resistance would need to be.

Volts = Current*Resistance
Resistance = 50,000 volts / 0.5 amps
Resistance = 100,000 ohms
1 mega ohm

I have no idea if that is a likely resistance for something to have, but it's a place to start.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 28 2010, 08:56 PM

Plastic Explosives (C4 in particular) burn without detonating (I Used to cook MRE's with it all the time in the Gulf War)... Electrical Detonators, on the other hand, are susceptible to detonation by Current... Unfortunately, the current you ended up with is not enough to detonate a standard Military Electical Detonator (At least not the ones I used when I was in the Marine Corps, and I do not see them reducing their standards)...

Posted by: Simon Kerimov Aug 28 2010, 09:16 PM

Okay, so 50,000 volts/1.5 amps = 33.33 kΩ. Does that come closer? Explosives are stable to keep this sort of thing from happening, and I think they probably have a high resistance. That said, my real life knowledge and interests in explosives and flammables stopped around the pyro boy scout stage. Magnesium kindling starters are cool and all, but don't relate in any meaningful way to this.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 28 2010, 09:32 PM

1.5 Amps is closer, if what I am remembering is accurate... and yes, Explosives are exceedingly stable these days... it is almost always the detonators that are susceptible/the weak link...

But Magnesium Kindling starters are fun...

Posted by: CanRay Aug 28 2010, 09:43 PM

"You are the weakest link..." *Kah, boom*

Posted by: Jaid Aug 28 2010, 10:10 PM

1.5 amps, as was already mentioned, would kill the runner anyways. in point of fact, 15 milliamps will cause serious problems. as i recall, somewhere around 5 milliamps is all that is needed to seriously injure you, and even lower current than that will still hurt like crazy.

as far as the megohm resistance, it's not all that unlikely in general, but i have no idea how likely it would be in a detonator. but really, you can get individual resistors with a lot more resistance than that, and they'd be quite tiny.

Posted by: Sengir Aug 28 2010, 11:25 PM

Not at all. But if we already assume that a SnS round hits the (small) detonator, which is already placed in the charge, which is carried by a runner who just happens to stand next to the structure's archilles heel, we might as well add another insane assumption


Of course if your GM says "the guards don't use SnS because they are scared to set off explosives" that's fine, as long as this logic was born out of plotline necessities and not vice versa. As a current example from my group, if your GM decides you are not going to pick up a weapon and explains it by saying "well, the AK the guard just dropped got damaged by the fall", that's just fine. If your GM believes that IRL dropping a weapon to the floor renders it unusuable and does not let you pick up any weapons because of that belief, that sucks.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Aug 29 2010, 12:04 AM

I can't around this; shouldn't the shadowrunners be more scared of this than the guards? Scared enough not to carry unprotected explosives?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 29 2010, 12:40 AM

This is generally why I carried detonators on the opposite side of my body from the actual explosives... just an extra bit of precaution, even if was not actually needed in the long run...

Posted by: X-Kalibur Aug 30 2010, 04:53 PM

Yeah, but stealing corp issued weapons seems like a bad idea on so many levels.

Posted by: Starmage21 Aug 30 2010, 04:59 PM

Not if your team has a tag eraser and a decent hacker.

Posted by: DWC Aug 30 2010, 05:07 PM

Or you require that one person carry the detonators and another carries the explosives. That's our usual approach and it hasn't failed spectacularly yet.

Posted by: Dumori Aug 30 2010, 05:13 PM

Just wait till you fall on each other and an electrified rail as the train the guy your extracting heads to wards you....

Posted by: Yerameyahu Aug 30 2010, 07:07 PM

Just put *all* the gear in little shock/chem/etc.-proof pouches. Done, crazy GM tactic neutralized.

Posted by: Simon Kerimov Aug 30 2010, 10:01 PM

I'm sorry, I found it spelled out explicitly in Arsenal. I didn't think it would be so irritating to people.

Posted by: Mayhem_2006 Aug 30 2010, 10:28 PM

Not irritating, just not relevant to your original post. Yes, a SnS might set off an electrical detonator, but nobody with *any* knowledge of explosives will be carrying around their plastique with the detonator already stuck in it.

So the chances of collateral damage from shocking a explosives-carrying 'runner are negligible. And the detonator going off on its own shouldn't cause significant injury unless the runner in question keeps them tucked into his hat-band...

Posted by: Dumori Aug 30 2010, 10:37 PM

Or right over the heart in a big bunch.

Posted by: Faradon Aug 30 2010, 11:38 PM

So how do people feel about lightning bolt and other such spells in relations to plastic explosives?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Aug 31 2010, 12:52 AM

That also works out well...

Posted by: Ed_209a Aug 31 2010, 02:22 AM

I think you are talking about electrically knocking your heart out of rhythm. To clarify, this is caused by a few milliamps at the heart. As mentioned above, resistance varies greatly depending on the situation, so current that tickles one time, could kill you the next time, and current strong enough to cause surface burns might not kill you.

Posted by: suoq Aug 31 2010, 11:15 AM

In an effort to throw actual data on the flames of vagueness.

http://www.oshatrain.org/courses/pages/715Am2.html

Note the term "Effects of Electrical Current on the Body", not "on the Heart".
50-150 milliamps (Note: no where near enough to do jack to the detonators, nevermind the explosive)

50 milliamps does NOT tickle. The amount of amperage that does tickle (1 milliamps) isn't going to kill you. You can use a violet wand at the tickle level (and at a pain level) very safely as long as you follow simple safety procedures.

It's easy to cause surface burns with a current that isn't going to kill you. All you need is a violet wand and a piece of conducting material that comes to a point for the spark to come out of. It's very easy to do with great precision. And if a violet wand tickles you one time, it will keep tickling you. It isn't going to kill you.

Unless you're doing something incredibly stupid, like using it on someone with a pacemaker or using it anywhere near the eyeballs, it's a very safe device.

Posted by: Sengir Aug 31 2010, 11:53 AM

I'd rather bring a corp-issued weapon into a gunfight than a knife, and unfortunately those were the only options.

Posted by: Jaid Aug 31 2010, 06:22 PM

to some extent yes. 15 mA is the point at which you probably lose the ability to let go (it can vary a bit from person to person, but that's what my safety manual has listed). i had misremembered the point at which it was likely to cause death (though less current over an extended period of time can still cause death potentially, as the linked article notes: 100 mA for 3 seconds is as dangers as 900 mA for 0.03 seconds. one of those is very short, probably shorter than you or i can perceive, but both are quite possible within the context of someone working on a device rather than someone being shocked with a taser, and the former is what my training relates to. so no, 15 mA won't kill you instantly. but if you're getting 15 mA for a while, that's a different thing entirely).

my safety manual further lists 100-200 mA as being 'almost certain heart stoppage and death unless defibrillation equipment is available', only someone left the caps lock key on and bolded the entire sentence.

Posted by: kzt Sep 1 2010, 01:54 AM

Umm, doesn't anyone read the rules? SR plastic explosives doesn't require detonators or anything like that. It just blows up when an electric current hits it.

"Plastic Explosives: Highly stable, moldable, and adhesive, plastic
explosives are ideal for certain jobs—like blowing a hole in a wall. They
are usually color-tinted to indicate the level of current needed to detonate
them, from the black of magnetic-field induction to the chalky
white of 440-volt industrial explosives."

I have no idea where they find the idiots who would write anything this insane.

Posted by: sabs Sep 1 2010, 02:01 AM

have you read the fluff on move by wire systems.

Some of the Shadowrun writers do not research their ideas

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 1 2010, 02:07 AM

Indeed. Try to ignore it. Fluff is nothing.

Posted by: CanRay Sep 1 2010, 02:16 AM

Re-search? What is this Re-search you speak of?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 1 2010, 02:23 AM

Or you could just read that as the strength of the detonator required for actual detonation... makes it easier that way...

Posted by: CanRay Sep 1 2010, 02:32 AM

How about this for a reason Stick and Shock is a bad idea: "It's a fraggin' BULLET!"

It's traveling at either just under or quite a bit over supersonic speed and has a bit of weight behind it. If you're not wearing armor of some sort, it's going to penetrate the fleshy bits quite nicely.

I'm not a doctor, but I t think fast traveling things in my fleshy bits is bad for my health, even before the electricity is added.

Posted by: kzt Sep 1 2010, 02:33 AM

That doesn't make any sense either. You don't need a giant 3-phase generator to set off a blasting cap. And everyone wants blasting caps that blow up when you drive under a high tension power line, right?

Posted by: CanRay Sep 1 2010, 02:36 AM

Why not? I mean, the ones a lot of folks use go off with a hard look.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 1 2010, 02:37 AM

Right, but a blasting machine is a pretty significant piece of hardware, and generates a fairly strrong current... and Plastic explosives do not detonate without a detonator... so using the designation as "Type of Detonator Required" works... now, the classifications are a bit wonky to be sure, but meh... so what... I can suspend disbelief on that, how about you?

Posted by: Dumori Sep 1 2010, 02:43 AM

I want induction set of explosive would be good for a car bomb with grid link an all just as you hand wave how it reached you from any where.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 1 2010, 02:50 AM

Huh?

Posted by: sabs Sep 1 2010, 02:26 PM

Take Car with gridguide and pilot upgrades.
Fill car with plastic explosives.
Tell the pilot to drive it to your destination all nice and normal like.
Pilot triggers the explosion when he gets to the destination, feeding electrical charge from the gridguide

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 1 2010, 03:15 PM

That's not what it means by 'induction detonator', but… you realize you could just put the bomb in the car, right?

Posted by: sabs Sep 1 2010, 03:18 PM

Pish Posh
This is more amusing

Posted by: CanRay Sep 1 2010, 05:55 PM

No, more amusing would be making the bomb out of moonshine and watching the victim try to drink his way out of the problem.

Posted by: Zoot Sep 4 2010, 03:34 PM

wow, interesting read. Of course, you all know that SnS rounds are real...

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/taser-shotgun-shell1.htm

There has been a recent 'guy with a gun' incident in the UK where the police actually used these.

Posted by: suoq Sep 10 2010, 03:24 AM

I hate to necro this thread, especially since all I'm doing is proving that everything I said in this thread is wrong but...

Arsenal, Pg 89.

Arsenal.... why is it always Arsenal...

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 10 2010, 03:30 AM

If they *hit* the *detonator*.

Posted by: Dragonscript Sep 10 2010, 04:24 AM

Since a M7 or M6 detonator is about the size of a .22 long rifle, good luck with that.


edit: sorry, it is an M7, not M5.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 10 2010, 04:26 AM

And there are no rules for hit locations, so you'll have to call a shot on a tiny target. If you (or the enemy) doesn't do that, there's zero chance.

Posted by: Ascalaphus Sep 10 2010, 11:54 AM

IF the explosives are fire-sensitive; most of the standard explosives in SR aren't. All the really powerful explosives aren't.

Posted by: Dahrken Sep 10 2010, 11:57 AM

altough they are not likely to explode, they still have a high probability of burning pretty hot... which can trigger another set of complications for whoever is carrying them.

Posted by: Jaid Sep 10 2010, 05:29 PM

whereas getting shot with a tracer round is like being tickled with a very soft feather, i suppose?

Posted by: darthmord Sep 10 2010, 06:03 PM

I just like how it mentioned plastic explosives as being able to be set of with magnetic field induction...

I don't know but somehow, that seems like a really bad idea...

Posted by: Warlordtheft Sep 10 2010, 06:04 PM

Well if your a troll, maybe....

Posted by: kzt Sep 10 2010, 06:34 PM

Only if you happen to be somewhere where there are magnetic fields. Like power lines...

Posted by: Dahrken Sep 10 2010, 06:45 PM

Well, at least against the bullet you have your ballistic protection. Against burning explosive in your backpack or pocket you get only 1/2 impact, and it has the potential to ignite your spare magazines... And it can get even worse if the character is carrying a bunch of grenades...

Posted by: Dragonscript Sep 10 2010, 08:48 PM

A magnetic field won't set off the explosives themselves, but they could set off an unshunted electric blasting cap. A cell phone or a radio can do the same thing. Whenever i've done a demo range they would always get the field declared a no-fly zone since a helo creates so much static electricity it could set off unshunted caps just by flying over.

During the Vietnam war, the Vietcong would point claymore mines upward, with an unshunted blasting cap in the fuse well, in a potential LZ so when the helos would get near to land they set off the mines.

Posted by: kzt Sep 10 2010, 09:38 PM

Well, there are no blasting caps in SR4 RAW. You just directly apply electricity (or magnetic fields) to the plastic explosive and BOOM!

Of course, this is totally insane, but I'm sure the Dev saw it somewhere in the comic book that they stole the rest of the combat mechanics from.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 10 2010, 09:39 PM

Except for the fact the book refers to detonators and blasting caps. Arsenal p87 is nothing *but* various detonators. SR4A Core does too: p325, Detonator Caps.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Sep 11 2010, 01:03 AM

I want to know why they're using blasting caps and detonators at all.

Modern demolitionists don't use them much. They use DetCord/PrimaCord. Much more reliable and the 'signal' actually travels faster than electricity.



-karma

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 11 2010, 03:36 AM

There are rules for that, too.

Posted by: CanadianWolverine Sep 11 2010, 03:39 AM

Just to add to the topic (based on the title), what are your thoughts on this: I recently watched an episode of Mythbusters where they ignite a "perp" on fire with the use of pepper spray and a taser projectile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV8oPisTOnY

I am not considering explosives going off but just that some simulated runner just got set on fire. Fire tends to be somewhat of a pain in buildings at times but I suppose it is enough an outlier that I am not sure it would deter the use of SnS. Hmm, some corp sec does a stray shot into the wrong object and now they have to explain why they set the building on fire? Maybe it would be a deterrent? *shrug*

Hehe, speaking of stray shots setting stuff on fire, it would be rather funny if runner either "accidentally" torched their objective on a smashNgrab or purposefully did it if they were doing a structure hit by using tracer, Ex, and/or Ex-Ex rounds.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 11 2010, 03:53 PM

You still need a Detonator to ignite the Det Cord/Prima Cord... as it is an explosive as well... It cannot go "Boom" without an initiator... This form a LOT of expereince in the field...

Posted by: KarmaInferno Sep 11 2010, 04:20 PM

Yeah, but a detcord igniter is just a little handheld thing the size of a small flashlight. It's essentially a tube with a percussion cap in it - you load the percussion cap (or it's pre-loaded in disposable igniters) and stick the DetCord/PrimaCord/Shock Tubing in the open end. The other end has a ring you yank on, to set off the ignition.

There's computer-controlled versions as well.

None of which actually "explode" like the old blasting caps did. At most it's basically like taking the primer cap off a bullet cartridge and setting that off. It's not unlike a blank-firing pistol.

And I forgot the other big advantage of DetCord - it's electromagnetically insensitive. No stray radio waves setting the stuff off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AuTxeV0lxU It's actually pretty anticlimactic, a guy just pulls a ring-pin out of a small tube.


-karma

Construction Engineer, also has a significant amount of experience in the field.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 11 2010, 04:24 PM

There are 6-8 different 'cap' options in the book; one assumes that they cover the range of technology available today, and then some. The way language works, we'd probably call it a 'blasting cap' no matter what mechanism it actually used.

No experience in any field needed.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 11 2010, 04:30 PM

Think about this though...are you really going to hold the igniter (attached to the DetCord) in your hand to yank the Pullring? Really? I would highly doubt it (with the explosive rate of DetCord you will suffer the likely loss of fingers/hand/arm)... what is more likely is you will attach the igniter to a Small length of Fusing, which is attached to a Percussion Detonator, which is then attacked to a length of DetCord running to your Main Ring of explosives (All attached with DetCord)... At least that is how the Military does it...
You also have Electrical Options for this as well, some of which can be used wired, and other which may be used via Remote Radio/Computer...

Military applications STILL use detonators, both Electrical and Percussion, to ignite DetCord... I was unaware that Construction Demolitions have changed significantly from Military Applications. From what I have seen over the last few years, it is still as I described. Though your potential applications have come a long way for actual detonation, at the core, you still need a Detonator. Fulminate of Mercury for the win...

Of course, I may be caught up in the definition of "Explode" Here... no, Detonators are not like they were 50 years ago, most definitely...

Posted by: KarmaInferno Sep 11 2010, 04:49 PM

I added a video - the guy really does just hold the igniter tube.

Generally, they don't run Detcord all the way up to handheld igniters - if they're using DetCord, the last few feet will be replaced with Shock Tubing, which is a little less explody. If the ignition is computer-controlled rather than manually initiated (many building demolitions are these days) you can in fact run the Detcord right up to the igniter in some systems.

Really, quite often these days Shock Tubing has replaced Detcord entirely as the commonly used "fuse" of choice in commercial demolitions. Rather than PETN inside a cord, it's a fine explosive powder. Less finicky than PETN. But most laymen have never heard of Shock Tubing, so I initially used Detcord as a reference since more folks have heard of that.



Yeah, Commercial stuff has the luxury of running fuse all over the place. Military often doesn't.

I've seen commercial-grade remote igniters that are little more than a standard ignition tube with a radio controlled release, and tiny length of shock tube that gets stuck into the explosive, but I've never actually seen them used. Most of the time commercial demolitions folks prefer non-wireless stuff - urban environments have way too much radio traffic for remote detonation to be 'safe'.


-karma

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 11 2010, 07:14 PM

Well, I learn something new each and every day...
Thanks KarmaInferno...