edit: after 20 comments, i’m adding a post description here, since most of the commenters so far appear not to be reading the article:
This is about how surprisingly cheap it is (eg $15,000) to buy a complete production line to be able to manufacture batteries with a layer of nearly-undetectable explosives inside of them, which can be triggered by off-the-shelf devices with only their firmware modified.
Just to be clear, the pager thing wasn’t exploding batteries, they had apparently been modified at the production level to have explosives in them, which could be triggered by the pager system itself.
Did you read it?
The article literally talks about inserting an explosive layer inside the battery at production. Just like the comment said.
It isn’t “any batteries can explode”.
Reports indicate the explosive payload in the cells is made of PETN.
Such a sheet could be inserted into the battery fold-and-stack process, after the first fold is made (or, with some effort, perhaps PETN could be incorporated into the spacer polymer itself – but let’s assume for now it’s just a drop-in sheet, which is easy to execute and likely effective)
Just to be clear, the pager thing wasn’t exploding batteries, they had apparently been modified at the production level to have explosives in them, which could be triggered by the pager system itself.
What? 🤦 The comment I replied to said:
Just to be clear, the pager thing wasn’t exploding batteries, they had apparently been modified at the production level to have explosives in them, which could be triggered by the pager system itself.
It seems clear that “they had apparently been modified at the production level” is referring to the pagers, rather than their batteries. But the article is explaining how it could have been that the batteries were the part of the pager that had the explosives (in which case it was the battery that was exploding).
Of course not, what did you expect?
I encourage you to, it’s pretty interesting.
Lithium burns intensely but it doesn’t explode. An electric car can burn for a long time, but they don’t explode. One of the comments says so
I understand that what happened in Libanon was that dedicated explosives were added to the devices, it was not the batteries exploding. But that does not take away the conclusion of your story.
It shouldn’t be undetectable. Throw a device from s series into a fire as a spot check and if it burns it’s ok, if it explodes give the entire series to your enemy’s kids to play with.
Throw a device from s series into a fire as a spot check and if it burns it’s ok, if it explodes give the entire series to your enemy’s kids to play with.
Most high explosives burn unless detonated properly.
This is really basic stuff. I don’t think you should be out and about giving people advice about handling (potential) explosives.
I am not an explosives expert, but I’ve seen enough YouTube videos about explosives to know that not all explosives explode in fire. Some are incredibly stable at extreme conditions right up until deliberately triggered. It all depends on the type of explosives.
There may still be ways to detect them, but it’s not necessarily going to be that simple.
Yes that’s correct high explosives require a starter explosive. However this starter explosive would also have to be incorporated into the device and the starter explosive is triggered by a spark or a fire. So throwing it in a fire would still work as a test you’d just have to make sure it totally melted before concluding anything.
They don’t necessarily require a starter explosive, certain types do of course. It’s more about overcoming the initial energy required, for example the arc from an electric arc lighter could probably overcome that requirement in a lot of scenarios.
Heads up, I don’t think C4 explodes when burned. I think it requires electronic detonation or a blasting cap.
It’s right next to or in a high intensity lithium fire, not just a normal little flame. That should alter the equation somewhat.
It’s possible that it could, but could also not. I’d be curious to find out what would happen but unfortunately the feds won’t let me run tests on semtex because I don’t have “the proper permits.” Jerks.
Maybe we’ll see someone with a license to manufacture destructive devices, like OrdinanceLab on YT, do a video on it (fingers crossed!)
PETN was put into the batteries
And also because it’s impossible.
So it is actually in fact very hard. What they had was exploding explosives which are not hard.
Since apparently many people aren’t reading the article: It is about how cheap it actually is (eg $15,000) to buy a complete production line to be able to manufacture batteries with a layer of nearly-undetectable explosives inside of them, which can be triggered by off-the-shelf devices with only their firmware modified.
Right, so why are you editorializing the title to say something that the article in fact does not say?
The fact that bombs are explosive is not revolutionary or all that interesting.
Right, so why are you editorializing the title to say something that the article in fact does not say?
The title is a copy+paste of the first sentence of the third paragraph, and it is not misleading unless you infer “exploding batteries” to mean “exploding unmodified batteries”. But, the way the English language works, when you put explosives inside an XYZ, or do something else which causes an XYZ to explode, it becomes an “exploding XYZ”. For example:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_animal
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_cigar
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_pagers
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_trousers
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_watermelon
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_whale
The fact that bombs are explosive is not revolutionary or all that interesting.
That fact also is not what the article is about.
Jfc Christ Lemmy.
Every single comment misunderstanding the point. The batteries are exploding because there’s explosives in them. This does make them exploding batteries. They explode because they are partially made with explosives. Please don’t “well actually” this.
No this is not a description of something Israel did, it’s a hypothetical way to do a similar attack to show how within reach of idiot terrorists it is.
Raising the idea of doing this so everyone is thinking about it is extremely bad for us all. Thanks Israel.
Jfc Christ Lemmy.Every single comment misunderstanding the point.
Pedantics fighting pedantics LOL
The batteries are exploding because there’s explosives in them. This does make them exploding batteries.
And when you put the same explosives inside a barbie doll and make it go off, then it wasn’t an exploding barbie doll. Or was it? ;-)
Pedantics fighting pedantics LOL
I think you mean “pedants fighting pedants” :p
Please don’t well actually this.
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
Yes, yes it did. I didn’t understand that sentence until I saw this version with quotes.
That does not make them exploding batteries, it had explosives in them. A suicide bomber is not an explosive human.
They’re batteries. And they are explosive because of the explosives in them. They are discrete things that are explosives.
You’re trying to make a weird, un-useful, pedantic distinction here.
Comment you replied to was making a far more useful correction, because people did not read the article.
A suicide bomber is not an explosive human but they are an exploding human.
