Who needs to know how to make a bomb?

[dimreepr]

Just now, louis wu said:

Not according to the HSE Pressure vessel regulations (UK Pressure Equipment Directive (Directive 97/23/EC) (PED)).  Only a contained pressure of 0.5 Bar or greater satisfies the requirements for a pressure vessel.

 

Not the point.

[John Cuthber]

23 minutes ago, louis wu said:

Not according to the HSE Pressure vessel regulations (UK Pressure Equipment Directive (Directive 97/23/EC) (PED)).  Only a contained pressure of 0.5 Bar or greater satisfies the requirements for a pressure vessel.

The Pressure Vessel Regulations are regulations under the health + safety at work etc act 1974.

Since that act  only applies to people at work ( or those affected by such work) and the people blowing stuff up are not "at work" as defined in the act, the regulations don't apply.

So, what you are saying is that balloons wouldn't be a pressure vessel if they were part of someone's occupation.

 

Well, nobody said they were.

So, not only were your comments irrelevant, they were also technically wrong.

HSE also does not regulate children playing conkers.

[Airbrush]

On ‎10‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 9:34 AM, John Cuthber said:

It only takes one...

We can never control everyone.  We can make it harder for MOST people to make bombs.  And that is the best we can do.

Cesar Sayoc probably found it EASY to make a bomb on the internet.  We don't know why none of the bombs exploded yet.  He is no rocket scientist.

Edited October 28, 2018 by Airbrush

[louis wu]

36 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The Pressure Vessel Regulations are regulations under the health + safety at work etc act 1974.

Since that act  only applies to people at work ( or those affected by such work) and the people blowing stuff up are not "at work" as defined in the act, the regulations don't apply.

So, what you are saying is that balloons wouldn't be a pressure vessel if they were part of someone's occupation.

 

Well, nobody said they were.

So, not only were your comments irrelevant, they were also technically wrong.

HSE also does not regulate children playing conkers.

So the official EU wide definition of pressure vessels is irrelevant  as to discounting a balloon as a pressure vessel. Well I disagree. Balloons are not pressure vessels, either when utilised in work environments or otherwise.

BTW the official HSE position on conkers appears to be http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/september.htm. 

 

[John Cuthber]

An inflated balloon is a vessel, and is under pressure.

It is a pressure vessel.

It falls outside the scope of the regulations for our discussion here because it is not work related.

 

If you were using one at work (and you might- for example to store low pressure gas in a lab) then it would fall outside the regs because the pressure is (usually) too low.

 

19 minutes ago, louis wu said:

So the official EU wide definition of pressure vessels is irrelevant  as to discounting a balloon as a pressure vessel. Well I disagree.

Your agreement or otherwise is subordinate to the evidence which shows that balloons are vessels under pressure.

HSE has a view on kids playing conkers.

And, as I said

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

HSE also does not regulate children playing conkers.

Edited October 28, 2018 by John Cuthber

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

I am extremely unimpressed by the conduct in this thread. 

rangerx, Raider5678, TenOz, J. C. MacSwell, you have all been here long enough to know that we expect you to stay on topic. This thread is not about the recent pipe bomb incident in the US. Do not continue to drag it off topic. 

rangerx and Radier5678, you have had enough run-ins to know that we don't tolerate hostility. You are both guilty of not complying with that to different extents. Raider, you by far are the worst in this case. We do not allow members to insult others. We do not allow them to attack their mental health. And if your best response to something is 'fuck off,' then I suggest not posting since you clearly have nothing of value to contribute. 

 

 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, Airbrush said:

We can never control everyone.  We can make it harder for MOST people to make bombs.  And that is the best we can do.

Cesar Sayoc probably found it EASY to make a bomb on the internet.  We don't know why none of the bombs exploded yet.  He is no rocket scientist.

 

how? I can repurpose a firework (in the absence of guns ), no internet needed...

[Airbrush]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

how? I can repurpose a firework (in the absence of guns ), no internet needed...

If you know how to repurpose fireworks, good for you.  Most people, such as myself, don't know how. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

43 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

If you know how to repurpose fireworks, good for you.  Most people, such as myself, don't know how. 

Reading the warnings on the box might give a few hints...

[Raider5678]

55 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

If you know how to repurpose fireworks, good for you.  Most people, such as myself, don't know how. 

Repurposing it doesn't require doing anything to the firework other then setting it off where it shouldn't be set off.

[nevim]

,It is SO EASY to make a bomb. I could make one right here, right now. But I can't think of any reason why I would do that, right now, or anytime. Unfortunately, some people can.

Edited October 29, 2018 by nevim

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, nevim said:

It is SO EASY to make a bomb. I could make one right here, right now. But I can't think of any reason why I would do that, right now, or anytime. Unfortunately some people can think of many reasons.

Agreed. I've made "bombs" with dry ice, water and a soda bottle; carbide, water and a milk jug; sparklers, duct tape, and a match. Cost me about $1 and two minutes of my time. My kids told me how to make the sparkler bomb.

[nevim]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Agreed. I've made "bombs" with dry ice, water and a soda bottle; carbide, water and a milk jug; sparklers, duct tape, and a match. Cost me about $1 and two minutes of my time. My kids told me how to make the sparkler bomb.

Ha ha, I didn't know that one

[J.C.MacSwell]

Mentos (candy) and diet coke make for a good "explosion" (relatively safe if done carefully)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_Coke_and_Mentos_eruption

[zapatos]

Here is my warning on sparklers...

 

[Airbrush]

21 hours ago, zapatos said:

Agreed. I've made "bombs" with dry ice, water and a soda bottle; carbide, water and a milk jug; sparklers, duct tape, and a match. Cost me about $1 and two minutes of my time. My kids told me how to make the sparkler bomb.

There are "bombs" and there are deadly devices that kill and cripple people.  This discussion was intended to be about dangerous, life-threatening devices.  Why would anyone care about harmless devices that go "pop"?

Edited October 30, 2018 by Airbrush

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

There are "bombs" and there are deadly devices that kill people.  This discussion was intended to be about dangerous, life-threatening devices. Why would anyone care about harmless devices that go "pop"?

 

Why indeed; the pen is mightier than the sword...

[DrP]

On ‎25‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 10:29 PM, John Cuthber said:

I needed to know how to make a bomb- if only to avoid doing it by accident.

Good point. (I thought I replied to this the other day but can't find the post) -  I still stand by my not being interested....  but I guess I know enough not to go around nitrating stuff for fun/no reason...  and if I was trying out something unknown or with potential problems I would research it a bit first.

[Raider5678]

53 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

There are "bombs" and there are deadly devices that kill and cripple people.  This discussion was intended to be about dangerous, life-threatening devices.  Why would anyone care about harmless devices that go "pop"?

Believe it or not, several of these bombs that go "pop" could be life threatening. A sparkler bomb properly hooked up could have killed someone just as effectively as the pipe bombs sent, if not better.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Raider5678

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

There are "bombs" and there are deadly devices that kill and cripple people.  This discussion was intended to be about dangerous, life-threatening devices.  Why would anyone care about harmless devices that go "pop"?

Why didn't you look at my warning about what the device that goes "pop" did to that kid?

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

Good point. (I thought I replied to this the other day but can't find the post) -  I still stand by my not being interested....  but I guess I know enough not to go around nitrating stuff for fun/no reason...  and if I was trying out something unknown or with potential problems I would research it a bit first.

1

 

[John Cuthber]

 

4 hours ago, DrP said:

if I was trying out something unknown or with potential problems I would research it a bit first.

 

You just broke my irony meter.

Would you, by any chance, research it by checking the internet?

 

4 hours ago, DrP said:

I guess I know enough not to go around nitrating stuff for fun/no reason

How do you know that?

Is it because someone told you that nitrating things  ...

 

[DrP]

13 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

How do you know that?

Is it because someone told you that nitrating things  ...
 

....  I'm an industrial chemist...  I just know some things. I usually assume I know less than I think I do...  maybe I know more than I think I do when it comes to poisons, explosives and drugs - I don't know. You can't get through a chemistry education without knowing/learning some things. Regarding the nitrating...  I think I might have been told that at school. ...  also - that's how you get TNT from toluene, no?  There are other energetics that are also nitrated as far as I am aware. Not something I am interested in playing with anyway. I work with a substance called pentaerythritol - I am certain that I do not want to nitrate that one as it is a precursor for a number of things that go bang.

13 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

You just broke my irony meter.

Would you, by any chance, research it by checking the internet?

I'm not saying all knowledge should be deleted from the internet - it wasn't me that said that  -  I agree with the sentiment that the knowledge is not necessary for the public domain and that I personally do not care for making bombs.

 

[Raider5678]

5 hours ago, DrP said:

The knowledge [to make bombs] is not necessary for the public domain

Knowledge is power is true in this context.

*Added the stuff in the square brackets

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Knowledge is power is true in this context.

 

Why in this context?