04-17-2013, 05:55 AM
I'm no expert, but I do have a little experience playing with both black and smokeless powder. :eek:
I once ignited a few ounces of smokeless powder. It burned very hot and bright, with the flame reaching about 8 feet high, but generated no smoke.
I did the same thing with black powder, which produced a very small flame, but copious amount of billowing white smoke like that seen at Boston.
Interestingly, when I placed a similar quantity of black powder into a cardboard tube ~5 inches in diameter and confined the ends of the tube, the result was a loud explosion with no smoke.
Considering that conflagration would not create nearly enough pressure to cause the amputating wounds at the marathon, IMO it's more likely that there was a genuine explosion of at least a portion of the powder, with perhaps the remainder conflagrating after the container ruptured.
Also, besides the flash and smoke seen in the video, objects near the explosion appear to move as would be expected when hit by blast force. That wouldn't happen with conflagration only.
I once ignited a few ounces of smokeless powder. It burned very hot and bright, with the flame reaching about 8 feet high, but generated no smoke.
I did the same thing with black powder, which produced a very small flame, but copious amount of billowing white smoke like that seen at Boston.
Interestingly, when I placed a similar quantity of black powder into a cardboard tube ~5 inches in diameter and confined the ends of the tube, the result was a loud explosion with no smoke.
Considering that conflagration would not create nearly enough pressure to cause the amputating wounds at the marathon, IMO it's more likely that there was a genuine explosion of at least a portion of the powder, with perhaps the remainder conflagrating after the container ruptured.
Also, besides the flash and smoke seen in the video, objects near the explosion appear to move as would be expected when hit by blast force. That wouldn't happen with conflagration only.