Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Thomas Nelson25 said:Playing a role and an underwater blast.
Basically saying you need less explosives.
It’s like 700kg—but looking at seismic readings
Is that actually realistic..? They have formulas for these calculations

Location matters—it plays a role in where you set the charge. Theoretically, if you could punch a hole through a pipe and shove the explosive right inside, you’d need way less stuff to cause massive destruction. This was definitely handled by pros, and honestly, neither side is going to claim responsibility for this kind of work.

brightheron64 said:Oh, sure, this looks like a textbook case of a profile leaking out... Sezmika basically caught what was almost certainly a secondary explosion of a pressurized mixture, and clearly someone smart enough knew exactly what kind of mixture was sitting in that pipeline, along with its ignition temperature at the specific pressure the pipe was under.
All they really had to do was introduce some kind of low-yield cumulative charge capable of generating enough heat to trigger an explosion once it breached the pipe wall.

I guess I'm some kind of expert now, too...😁🕺[/I]

Are you thinking along the lines of a thermobaric bomb, but a water-based version? 😁

Every explosive mixture has its upper and lower limits. It’s entirely possible they engineered some kind of "smart" bomb. Imagine it working like this: a shaped charge pierces the pipe casing first, then sprays a precise amount of oxygen into the void to hit that perfect fuel-air ratio—say, within a five-meter radius or whatever the specific volume and length of that pipe section requires. Once the mix is set, a detonator hits the ignition temperature, triggering an explosion so violent it rips a chunk right out of the line.

stormyangler32 said:Location matters—it plays a role in where you set the charge. Theoretically, if you could punch a hole through a pipe and shove the explosive right inside, you’d need way less stuff to cause massive destruction. This was definitely handled by pros, and honestly, neither side is going to claim responsibility for this kind of work.

Theoretically speaking, though, how on earth are you supposed to shove anything (through a tiny hole in a barrel) when you're dealing with internal pressures exceeding 1,400 PSI? 🤔

Just to give you some perspective, this example shows a situation where the internal pressure is only about 87 PSI. 😉

brightheron64 said:Theoretically speaking, though, how on earth are you supposed to shove anything (through a tiny hole in a barrel) when you're dealing with internal pressures exceeding 1,400 PSI? 🤔

Just to give you some perspective, this example shows a situation where the internal pressure is only about 87 PSI. 😉

It’s simple. You've got something on the other side pushing at 2,800 PSI.

stormyangler32 said:Location matters—it plays a role in where you set the charge. Theoretically, if you could punch a hole through a pipe and shove the explosive right inside, you’d need way less stuff to cause massive destruction. This was definitely handled by pros, and honestly, neither side is going to claim responsibility for this kind of work.

Maybe a torpedo, or even better, an anti-submarine mine.
Don't think they overcomplicated things too much.

Not sure if I read this right... apparently there was 100 atmospheres of gas pressure in the barrel.
Seems a bit high to me, but maybe it's just a typo in the report.

Either way, the barrel material was already pushed to the limit—designed to hold just enough to function.

Terry Green3 said:Every explosive mixture has its upper and lower limits. It’s entirely possible they engineered some kind of "smart" bomb. Imagine it working like this: a shaped charge pierces the pipe casing first, then sprays a precise amount of oxygen into the void to hit that perfect fuel-air ratio—say, within a five-meter radius or whatever the specific volume and length of that pipe section requires. Once the mix is set, a detonator hits the ignition temperature, triggering an explosion so violent it rips a chunk right out of the line.

Terry Green3 said:It’s simple. You've got something on the other side pushing at 2,800 PSI.

Good grief...

🙂

brightheron64 said:Theoretically speaking, though, how on earth are you supposed to shove anything (through a tiny hole in a barrel) when you're dealing with internal pressures exceeding 1,400 PSI? 🤔

Just to give you some perspective, this example shows a situation where the internal pressure is only about 87 PSI. 😉

Hasn't someone else here already mentioned how the pressure totally tanked right before the explosion happened? I mean, maybe it's impossible, just like you're saying, but if you're talking about a confined space—like inside a pipe or something—that explosive force can be up to five times more devastating.

brightheron64 said:Good grief...

🙂

We're off-topic anyway.
Let's drop it.

Kate Cook27 said:http://www.mobile.twitter.com/Podoly...Cg5fjWjdwrAAAA

Foreign observers attending these "referendums" are going to have to face the music.

Does that include representatives from Mississippi, Chechnya, and those types of entities?

Look, I’m no chemist, so don't come at me about the exact formulas—but if you wrap some standard blasting caps around a tree, it's coming down. Period. And honestly? You don't even need a massive amount to get the job done.

https://twitter.com/Helpful_Hand_SA/...02510351892480
The troops are gearing up and heading straight to the front lines.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Maybe a torpedo, or even better, an anti-submarine mine.
Don't think they overcomplicated things too much.

Not sure if I read this right... apparently there was 100 atmospheres of gas pressure in the barrel.
Seems a bit high to me, but maybe it's just a typo in the report.

Either way, the barrel material was already pushed to the limit—designed to hold just enough to function.

Where did you pick that number up?

Does that seem excessive to you?

Quinn:

It will be operated at an inlet pressure of up to 218 bar at a reference elevation of MSL +50m and a minimum outlet pressure of 103 bar

https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Ol...marts_2018.pdf

brightheron64 said:Where did you pick that number up?

Does that seem excessive to you?

Quinn:

It will be operated at an inlet pressure of up to 218 bar at a reference elevation of MSL +50m and a minimum outlet pressure of 103 bar

https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Ol...marts_2018.pdf

Honestly, I'm not even surprised... an industrial gas cylinder carries enough pressure to be scary.

But what I'm getting at is—you don't need much external force to rupture a seamless pipe (rolled steel material).
Just some kind of mine and—boom.

brightheron64 said:Theoretically speaking, though, how on earth are you supposed to shove anything (through a tiny hole in a barrel) when you're dealing with internal pressures exceeding 1,400 PSI? 🤔

Just to give you some perspective, this example shows a situation where the internal pressure is only about 87 PSI. 😉

Did nobody notice that they actually dropped the pressure down to 7 bar the day before the explosion happened?

Bonus question for the group, who could have possibly known the pressure was lowered right then, and what was the reason behind it...

electricstag9 said:https://twitter.com/Helpful_Hand_SA/...02510351892480
The troops are gearing up and heading straight to the front lines.

Poor souls, they’ll be broken just as easily as clay pigeons

Thomas Nelson25 said:Playing a role and an underwater blast.
Basically saying you need less explosives.
It’s like 700kg—but looking at seismic readings
Is that actually realistic..? They have formulas for these calculations

Exactly. Back when I was serving in the Navy, they actually showed us the kind of hole a torpedo tears through an armored hull. We're talking about maybe 300 kilos of explosives there.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...-_NH_64306.jpg

Thomas Nelson25 said:Maybe a torpedo, or even better, an anti-submarine mine.
Don't think they overcomplicated things too much.

Not sure if I read this right... apparently there was 100 atmospheres of gas pressure in the barrel.
Seems a bit high to me, but maybe it's just a typo in the report.

Either way, the barrel material was already pushed to the limit—designed to hold just enough to function.

Look, in actual engineering, nothing is ever designed to hold up "just barely." That’s not how this works. You need a safety factor of at least 1.5, minimum. And when you're talking about high-stakes stuff like a major gas pipeline? That margin is probably way higher.

Man, you've been stuck working on those pipes all day..

slyskipper22 said:Man, you've been stuck working on those pipes all day..

Pilate

Kate Lewis3 said:Look, in actual engineering, nothing is ever designed to hold up "just barely." That’s not how this works. You need a safety factor of at least 1.5, minimum. And when you're talking about high-stakes stuff like a major gas pipeline? That margin is probably way higher.

The safety factor is almost certainly much higher than 1.5. We are dealing with a pressurized pipeline sitting under the ocean floor; you have to account for inevitable corrosion and the fact that repairs aren't exactly easy down there. My bet is the safety coefficient is at least 3.

granitescout32 said:Did nobody notice that they actually dropped the pressure down to 7 bar the day before the explosion happened?

Bonus question for the group, who could have possibly known the pressure was lowered right then, and what was the reason behind it...

If the pressure had truly been dropped that low right before the sabotage—assuming the pipeline sits 330 feet below the ocean floor—we wouldn't be seeing this massive plume of gas bubbles on the surface. At that depth, the ocean exerts more pressure than those alleged 7 bars. Since gas is lighter than water, some would certainly escape to the surface depending on the hole's size and location, but it wouldn't manifest in such a concentrated, massive volume. The reality is that the pipeline was under significant pressure; it’s been leaking for days (which explains the dropping pressure), and the breach itself is substantial—potentially a full-section rupture.