Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the random.choice() dept.

Jonathan Grant Thompson, the man behind the popular science-focused YouTube channel King of Random has been charged with two counts of second-degree felony possession of an explosive device.

Thompson, 37, runs the King of Random YouTube channel, boasting about 200 videos and 8.9 million subscribers. His videos are of science experiments and are in the vein of science-based shows on networks such as the Discovery Channel.

Thompson has been making videos and putting them on YouTube since 2010. His videos have garnered more than 1.6 billion combined views.

According to the article the first complaint "resulted from a citizen complaint via Facebook Messenger on June 15 about Thompson exploding a dry ice bomb", and for the second:

Thompson said a friend had left him a bag of powder, which he believed to be from a deconstructed firework.

After lighting a couple of small "control fires" Thompson and Timothy Burgess, 20, of Ontario, Canada, ignited a larger pile which exploded, the police report states. According to the report, firefighters heard the explosion from the nearby fire station.

Google Maps shows there is a South Jordan fire station 0.2 miles from Thompson's home.

The explosion left Burgess with small particles of burned material embedded in his arms, charges say.

Burgess was charged with one count of second-degree felony possession of an explosive device. Court records show prosecutors have asked a judge to issue a $15,000 warrant for his arrest

Originally spotted via AvE's channel.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:32PM (11 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:32PM (#624438) Journal

    A bullet is an explosive device.

    No its not.
    Its a projectile and a case full of a progressive burning solid. Not an explosive.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by bzipitidoo on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:38PM (1 child)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:38PM (#624443) Journal

    Seems every owner of a combustion powered vehicle should be charged with possessing explosives.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:44PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:44PM (#624448)

      Following that logic, if you wait long enough, and most people Transport Explosives Across State Lines.
      To the Fed Pen, evil people!

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:38PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday January 18 2018, @10:38PM (#624444)

    Its a projectile and a case full of a progressive burning solid. Not an explosive.

    Much safer, less likely to cause accidental death or permanent maiming, I'm sure. Also, when combined with a gun, can cause accidental death or permanent maiming at a much greater distance...

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:15PM (2 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday January 18 2018, @11:15PM (#624463)

    Its a projectile and a case full of a progressive burning solid. Not an explosive.

    Actually, that's not true.

    A "bullet" in the modern sense of a "cartridge" is 4 components:
      - a casing, usually brass
      - a projectile, usually lead, frequently with a copper jacket
      - a powder that fills much of the space inside the casing not filled by the projectile; this powder as you say burns progressively, creating expanding gas which pushes the projectile
      - something called a "primer", which is a device containing a high explosive that is ignited when the primer is compressed by the firing pin.

    So yes, actually, a bullet is an explosive device, it contains HE (high explosive). There's not very much of it in there though, only enough to ignite the main powder charge.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @10:58AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @10:58AM (#624641)

      Yes the primer of a cartridge contains a small amount of explosive material needed to set off the primary charge of deflagrating powder. A bullet is NOT an explosive device. To be an explosive, as opposite to say a deflagrant, the detonation velocity (that is the speed of the wave of detonation) through the solid material has to exceed the speed of sound in that material. That is the defining feature of an explosive. Gunpowder is a deflagrant. It can burn rapidly, sometimes so rapidly that it appears to explode, but it is not an explosive.

      In addition, They aren't putting TATB or RDX in those primers, they are using comparatively (to other explosives) low power explosives. Something like the tried and true RDX has nearly double the explosion velocity and is 40% more dense (meaning you need less to get the same amount of bang). When it comes to the total amount of energy contained within that primer, Most guns wouldn't even be able to completely cycle their action.

      On the topic of these idiots and their powder, Im wondering if it truly was an explosive. I've messed with smokeless gunpowder and black powder many times and if you have the right stuff it can deflagrate fast enough to produce a very loud report even when the explosion isn't contained. I can't think of any common explosives that actually explode when you light them either. Every modern explosive, whether its military use or industrial, is quite insensitive to heat and shock and requires the use of a detonator to actually get the reaction started. Im by no means a expert in pyrotechnics but im skeptical this was a true explosive. Are all forms of deflagrating powders illegal? Can you be charged with possession of an explosive device even if its just gunpowder? As I wrote that I realized that the law isn't as pedantic as I am and doesn't consider the explosion wavefront velocity. As I recall you can be charged with possessing a weapon of mass destruction if you have a pipebomb with enough black powder in it.

      Either way those two morons should know better than to set off stuff like that without being in a more controlled environment than his goddamn backyard.

      • (Score: 2) by arcz on Friday January 19 2018, @09:18PM

        by arcz (4501) on Friday January 19 2018, @09:18PM (#624910) Journal
        Legally black powder is classified as an explosive, but dry ice isn't, since they list chemicals (such as those mixtures containing potassium nitrate) and etc.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday January 19 2018, @01:57AM (4 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Friday January 19 2018, @01:57AM (#624510) Journal

    As usual, frojack is right, about the details, partially. A "bullet" is a projectile. What projects it is either a low explosive, like black powder, or a propellent, like "smokeless powder." The combination of a bullet, propellant, case and primer is called a "cartridge" or a "round". Now the difference between propellents and explosives is sort of like this. Uncontained ignition of a propellant results in a "whoosh", as oft happens here on SoylentNews. High explosives will produce an explosion, even if unconstrained, as seems to have been the case here.

    So for all the semi-educated ammosexuals, it is kind of like propellants are "semi-explosives", but regular explosives are "full-auto". But if you put the wrong stuff in your chamber or bore-hole, you may experience catastrophic pressures, and possibly a "banana-peel" failure, rather like trying to be a heroin addict, and you accidently do some fentaynal.

    Oh, I see that arcz is marching to the Plains of Abraham. Not a good idea, son.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Friday January 19 2018, @03:30AM (3 children)

      by Whoever (4524) on Friday January 19 2018, @03:30AM (#624547) Journal

      Now the difference between propellents and explosives is sort of like this. Uncontained ignition of a propellant results in a "whoosh", as oft happens here on SoylentNews. High explosives will produce an explosion, even if unconstrained, as seems to have been the case here.

      The difference between regular "explosives" like gunpower and high explosives is that the rate of expansion of high explosives is greater than the speed of sound: the air surrounding the explosive mass provides the constraint necessary for a high explosive to explode and not merely burn.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 19 2018, @08:02AM (1 child)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday January 19 2018, @08:02AM (#624613) Journal

        Curious. So are you saying that C4, in the vacuum of space, would only go "whoosh"? Because in Space, no one can hear you explode. Interesting. ISS experiment in order, by our bad boy, King of Random?

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @09:22AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @09:22AM (#624627)

          If you have C4, then you no longer have empty space. There is thus a speed of sound.

          It is speed of sound IN THE EXPLOSIVE that matters, not the speed in any surrounding medium.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @11:52AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19 2018, @11:52AM (#624650)

        Just a small nitpick, its actually about the speed of sound in the material (explosive) as opposed to the air surrounding the material. Its all about the speed of the reaction moving through the material, is that wavefront moving through the explosive material faster than sound would move through that material. Deflagrants (like rocket propellants and gunpowder) burn at a rate slower than the speed of sound of their material so aren't said to "detonate" but rather "deflagrate". I'm not sure the air surrounding an explosive provides any "constraint" and it certainly doesn't change whether an explosive deflagrates or detonates. C4 will detonate in space, underwater, in your mum's undies, wherever. Its got all the ingredients it needs contained within to detonate and expand outward a large amount of gas at high speed. Even a deflagrant like gunpowder will burn in the vacuum of space, deflagrants just burn so slowly that their energy is dissipated over a long period of time. Containing a deflagration inside a container allows pressure to build and then releases it all instantaneously when the container ruptures, resulting in a bigger boom (same amount of energy just concentrated into a smaller pulse).