iiibdsiil
Member
Well, we all know a .45 will kill any shark, no matter where you hit it, and a .50 will kill it just by passing by within a 15 foot diameter, DUH! 
Mythbusters: Garand vs Shark Lozenge SCUBA Tank
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
The sharks just seem to be very vulnerable to ballistic wounds--much more so than more advanced predators. Look at what a bang stick does to even large sharks--it practically blows them in half, and that's just a shotgun shell with no barrel.
wally
Member
A bang stick is contact wound and the expanding high presure gases do all the spectular work.
--wally.
Cosmoline
Member
I think that sums up most people's reaction to the ending. And it's a sweet ending to be sure. Spielberg had the good sense to go with the big bang ending instead of following Benchley's advice.
chopinbloc
Member
on propane tanks: during my "experiments" as a youth, i discovered that a small, camp stove size propane bottle shot by a .22 near an open flame will produce dramatic results. there was a massive fireball and a propane bottle rocketing out of the fireball, flames trailing behind. when i say massive, i'm guessing about 12ft diamater - way more than i expected to see from such a small bottle. i too am curious about the five gallon tanks. 
on shooting sharks: my dad was a commercial fisherman for many years. he caught a small tiger shark once and wanted to keep it to cook it up. he tried smackin' it in the head with a gaff repeatedly and when that failed he held it up by the line and tail for his deckhand to shoot. emptied the 10/22 into the head and the thing was still going nuts. i'm not sure what effect a larger bullet would have, but i'm guessing the results would be widely disparate. any fish has a propensity to keep on going like an energizer bunny well after they're dead. the nervous system keeps sending signals for quite a while.
on shooting sharks: my dad was a commercial fisherman for many years. he caught a small tiger shark once and wanted to keep it to cook it up. he tried smackin' it in the head with a gaff repeatedly and when that failed he held it up by the line and tail for his deckhand to shoot. emptied the 10/22 into the head and the thing was still going nuts. i'm not sure what effect a larger bullet would have, but i'm guessing the results would be widely disparate. any fish has a propensity to keep on going like an energizer bunny well after they're dead. the nervous system keeps sending signals for quite a while.
I would think the only way a pressure vessel would explode (assuming you didn't exceed its pressure rating) is if a crack opened up real quick or a seam let go when it was punctured. Most pressure vessels these days would do that.
Last edited:
Hawken50
Member
It's for the CHILDREN, dammit!!!!!
Cosmoline
Member
Yeah, shooting them when they're on a boat is a bad idea. That's an important safety lesson I remember how nasty a little dog fish could be after bringing it aboard. I think a better plan would be to shoot them before you land them and let them get their death spasms resolved.
I remember how nasty a little dog fish could be after bringing it aboard. I think a better plan would be to shoot them before you land them and let them get their death spasms resolved.10 Ring Tao
Member
Ask, and ye shall receive...
http://s94994366.onlinehome.us/fireball2.mpg
Its a small green camping propane tank put inside a shot up microwave, to contain the tank when it burst. Attached is a lit road flare. The bursting of the tank provides the initial action, and then when the propane hits the flare a split second later.... FIREBALL
Fun stuff.
SkyDaver
Member
aluminum tanks
jdkelley asked whether they had aluminum tanks back in 1973, or so.
As a scuba diver at the time, and a USN Deep Sea diver starting in 1979, I can fairly confidently say yes.
Additionally, they chose an aluminum tank since the prop folks for "Jaws" *had* the tanks they used in the film, and they were aluminum.
Finally, they weren't (in this test) trying to see if they could kill a shark by blowing up a tank ... they were trying to see whether a tank would blow up if hit by a bullet. They even went out and bought a Garand, as that was what it appeared to be in the movie.
The firearms episodes I've seen on Mythbusters have been pretty realistic, but I wish their narrator was a little less hysterical.
jdkelley asked whether they had aluminum tanks back in 1973, or so.
As a scuba diver at the time, and a USN Deep Sea diver starting in 1979, I can fairly confidently say yes.
Additionally, they chose an aluminum tank since the prop folks for "Jaws" *had* the tanks they used in the film, and they were aluminum.
Finally, they weren't (in this test) trying to see if they could kill a shark by blowing up a tank ... they were trying to see whether a tank would blow up if hit by a bullet. They even went out and bought a Garand, as that was what it appeared to be in the movie.
The firearms episodes I've seen on Mythbusters have been pretty realistic, but I wish their narrator was a little less hysterical.
Brian Dale
Member
Hey, hso,
OK; sorry for the cheap shot. I agree with you almost 100%.
I'm still with M99M12 and Cosmo; it should have been so. That was a good ending.
Any flammable compressed gases? Remind me, please, of the UEL of oh, let's see ... acetylene.
OK; sorry for the cheap shot. I agree with you almost 100%.
I'm still with M99M12 and Cosmo; it should have been so. That was a good ending.
In days gone by, when I was younger and had more hair, me & my buds did some 5-gal propane tank experimentation. In the name of "science."
Experiment Methodology as Follows:
1. Plop a full closed 5-gal propane tank in a good-sized campfire.
2. Get back a ways and make sure you have hard cover.
3. Shoot propane tank with 12ga shotgun slug. .22LR will not work, nor will 9mm, and .45ACP out of an Officer's ACP is ineffective.
4. Duck for cover and admire the explosion and mushroom cloud.
5. Check undershorts (if wearing any) for unauthorized deposits.
Experiment Methodology as Follows:
1. Plop a full closed 5-gal propane tank in a good-sized campfire.
2. Get back a ways and make sure you have hard cover.
3. Shoot propane tank with 12ga shotgun slug. .22LR will not work, nor will 9mm, and .45ACP out of an Officer's ACP is ineffective.
4. Duck for cover and admire the explosion and mushroom cloud.
5. Check undershorts (if wearing any) for unauthorized deposits.
OP
OP
Ok, Pure acetylene gas is unstable and will explode with an intense enough shock without any oxidizer at pressures of 2 atm or more 
; however, that is a different reaction than its combustion.(otherwise the flammable range at STP in air is 2-85% ) It's the only flammable gas that can do it (leastwise until somone else points out one of the other dozen or more exotic flammable gases that can ignite by decompositon or electric shock or mechanical shock or ... :banghead: )
; however, that is a different reaction than its combustion.(otherwise the flammable range at STP in air is 2-85% ) It's the only flammable gas that can do it (leastwise until somone else points out one of the other dozen or more exotic flammable gases that can ignite by decompositon or electric shock or mechanical shock or ... :banghead: )
Last edited:
During WWI the use of tracers on zeppelins often did nothing more than punch holes in them. The gas cells did not contain enough oxygen for the hydrogen to even burn, and the bullet was gone long before enough leaked from the holes to create a flammable mixture.
There are a couple other gases that produce energy by decomposition (like acetylene) but the names are not on the tip of my tongue. Nitrocellulose (active on smokeless powder) is another item that decomposes to release energy. No oxygen required.
While a bursting tank can cause injuries, it is very different from a detonation.
Hollywood loves gasoline and the huge flames produced. Black powder is used in many forearms so there will be some visible indicator the weapon was fired. The flash from smokeless in a firearm is to brief in many cases for a film movie camera to catch. At 24 frames per second, and 1/1000 of a second exposure, each second of film only 'saw' 24/1000 of a second of the scene. That means the shutter was closed for 97.6% of the second. CCD (video) cameras operate slightly differently and can catch more of a brief flash, but even those are not 'looking' while the image is scanned out. A CMOS based camera has the same problem as a movie camera catching fleeting events.
And remember, every auto accident ends with the vehicle bursting into flames.
There are a couple other gases that produce energy by decomposition (like acetylene) but the names are not on the tip of my tongue. Nitrocellulose (active on smokeless powder) is another item that decomposes to release energy. No oxygen required.
While a bursting tank can cause injuries, it is very different from a detonation.
Hollywood loves gasoline and the huge flames produced. Black powder is used in many forearms so there will be some visible indicator the weapon was fired. The flash from smokeless in a firearm is to brief in many cases for a film movie camera to catch. At 24 frames per second, and 1/1000 of a second exposure, each second of film only 'saw' 24/1000 of a second of the scene. That means the shutter was closed for 97.6% of the second. CCD (video) cameras operate slightly differently and can catch more of a brief flash, but even those are not 'looking' while the image is scanned out. A CMOS based camera has the same problem as a movie camera catching fleeting events.
And remember, every auto accident ends with the vehicle bursting into flames.
- Status
