Ordnance – Mine-destroying devices
Reexamination Certificate
1999-01-20
2001-10-09
Eldred, J. Woodrow (Department: 3644)
Ordnance
Mine-destroying devices
C086S050000, C102S402000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06298763
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates generally to neutralization of explosive devices, such as land mines, underwater mines, unexploded ordnance (UXO), bombs, etc. More particularly, the present invention relates to a system for neutralizing an explosive device with substantially no collateral damage.
Various explosive devices have been and may continue to be deployed around the world. These explosive devices are present in various forms and provide various threats to people, vehicles, livestock, and other property that may be near such explosive devices. For example, explosive devices may include anti-personnel or anti-vehicle land mines, or underwater mines which are targeted to destroy or damage surface or submarine vessels. In addition, unexploded ordinance (UXO) may be located near, and present a threat to, people and property. Examples of UXO include various ammunition such as aerial bombs, or shells, which may be armed but have not yet exploded. Unknown or unforeseen conditions may cause the UXO to explode inadvertently with potentially disastrous results.
In addition, various types of explosive devices, sometimes termed bombs, can be assembled and deployed in areas where an explosion could threaten people or property. For example, such a bomb may be formed and positioned by an individual in a public area of a city. Often the triggering parameters of such a bomb are either unknown and/or out of the control of authorities who would otherwise desire to disable the bomb. For each of the above-described explosive devices, it is desirable to disable the system to avoid inadvertent damage to nearby people and property.
One traditional method of disabling explosive devices is to disarm them. Disarming can entail the disconnecting of the detonator or triggering mechanism from the explosive charge. Unfortunately, the appropriate manner of such disconnection may be difficult to determine or difficult to implement, or both, resulting in a highly dangerous situation for the person disarming the explosive. Further, even after being successfully disarmed, the explosive charge may still pose a danger of explosion due to other known or unknown mechanisms. Therefore, the explosive charge must still be neutralized or otherwise disposed of.
Another traditional method of disabling an explosive device is removing and transporting the system to a location that poses less danger to people and property, and detonating the explosive device there. Unfortunately, the removal of the explosive device without detonation may prove to be impossible, impractical, or difficult. For example, during a removal attempt there may be an inadvertent explosion and damage to people and/or property. Further, even if the explosive device was successfully removed, an inadvertent explosion and/or damage may occur during transit of the explosive device to a desired detonation location. Finally, even if the explosive system is successfully removed and transported to a desired detonation location, the detonation will necessarily involve collateral damage at the detonation site or require the provision of an explosion-resistant container.
The explosive device can also be conventionally disabled by in-place detonation where the explosive charge is triggered to explode. This method is often practiced in the case of land mines.
FIG. 1
depicts one example of a land mine
10
that is buried in the ground
12
below the ground surface
14
. While the land mine
10
shown in
FIG. 1
is covered with soil, such mines can also be covered with foliage or other camouflage, or can be uncovered. Mines of this type can be mechanically or non-mechanically (e.g., influence-type) activated. An influence-type mine contains an explosive bulk charge which is triggered by nonmechanical external conditions. For example, such a mine can be triggered by the detection of a sufficiently large and sufficiently close metal object. In contrast, a mechanically activated land mine is triggered in response to mechanical application of a force to one or more parts of the land mine. For example, in the land mine
10
shown in
FIG. 1
, a triggering device
16
is connected to a bulk charge
18
that is explosive. The triggering device
16
can include one or more plates supported by one or more springs. When a sufficient amount of pressure is imparted to the plates of the triggering device
16
, for example due to a person or vehicle moving onto the portion of the ground surface
14
directly above the triggering device
16
, the plates can press down. Under certain predetermined conditions of pressure or time, a fuse within the triggering device
16
can be initiated, which in turn detonates the bulk charge
18
. The bulk charge can be formed of various materials such as trinitrotoulene (TNT), Composition-B, or some other explosive material.
With such an explosive device, an example of in-place detonation is shown in FIG.
1
. An explosive charge
20
can be disposed on or near the ground surface
14
. The explosive charge
20
can be a conventional explosive that can be remotely detonated through known methods. Such conventional explosives can include TNT, Composition-B, or others such as dilute explosive tile (DET) available from SRI International of Menlo Park, California. As the explosive charge
20
explodes, material and energy travel away from the explosive charge
20
. As the material and energy from the explosive charge
20
travel in the direction of and to the land mine
10
, the land mine
10
, and more particularly the bulk charge
18
, may experience a particular peak pressure for a particular duration, both of which are sufficient to trigger and therefore explode the bulk charge
18
.
Unfortunately, the effectiveness of an explosive charge
20
formed of conventional explosives is strongly effected by how much material is between the explosive charge
20
and the land mine
10
. When underground, this amount can be characterized by the medium depth MD of the medium (here the ground or soil) between the explosive charge
20
and the land mine
10
through which the explosive material and energy travels. The effectiveness is also strongly affected by the type of the ground
12
or other intervening medium between the explosive charge
20
and the land mine
10
. Also, the effectiveness is affected by the overall distance from the land mine
10
to the explosive charge
20
. For example, this distance is greater when there is more lateral offset between the explosive charge
20
and the land mine
10
, and increases when the explosive charge
20
is exploded at larger heights above the ground surface
14
.
Due to each of the foregoing factors, conventional explosive charges
20
can be unreliable for neutralizing underground land mines with a medium depth MD of greater than 10 centimeters. Also, because the land mine may be detonated by the reaction of the bulk charge
18
itself, and not the triggering device
16
, the effectiveness of the conventional explosive charge
20
is affected by the particular type of bulk charge
18
used in the land mine
10
. More specifically, the effectiveness is influenced by the required peak pressure and or duration required for detonating the type of material that forms the bulk charge
18
.
Instead of a conventional explosive, a shaped explosive charge
22
can be used for in-place detonation of the land mine
10
, as shown in FIG.
2
. As shown in
FIG. 1
, the conventional explosive charge
20
essentially explodes with material and energy directed substantially equally in all directions. In contrast, the shaped explosive charge
22
can be configured such that when exploded, the material and energy (sometimes referred to as the “jet” and including hot molten material such as copper) are projected outward in one or more predetermined directions, with reduced or substantially no projection in other directions. Thus, the shaped explosive charge
22
can be placed near or on the land mine
10
, for example near or on the ground surface
14
, and remotely detonated. Upon such explosion, t
Gefken Paul R.
Greenfield Gary R.
Henry Terry
Kirkpatrick Steven
Peterson Brian D.
Eldred J. Woodrow
Homer Mark
The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of
LandOfFree
Explosive device neutralization system does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Explosive device neutralization system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Explosive device neutralization system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2552731