Home

www.history-what-if.com 


Re: Earliest chemical warfare Posted on: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 12:41:26 -0700

In article ,
pyotr filipivich wrote:

> This is the "problem" in a nutshell. Something works well in
> trials, or under certain conditions, but not always. Or not reliably.
> I had a prof who in his youth, had attempted to make "Carmel"
> rocket fuel. Basically a solid booster made of sugar and aluminum
> powder.

Uhhh. Where was the oxidizer? We used to use potassium perchlorate, carefully.
Worked pretty well for smokes.

> He'd never got it right, but he did produce some impressive
> smoke bombs. When a friend asked him to make one for a prank at
> college, he did. And this time, got it right. The entire coffee can
> lit off and produced a massive flare, and burned out very quickly. Too
> bad the can was "aimed" down, or who knows what kind of altitude he's
> have reached.
1038318. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038319. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038320. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038321. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038322. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038323. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038324. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038325. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038326. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038327. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038328. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038329. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038330. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038331. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038332. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038333. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038334. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038335. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038336. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038337. Re: Earliest chemical warfare