Explosive Forming vs Hydroforming #shorts

This guy is trying to restore the shape of the oil drum. After lighting a firecracker, he threw it into the oil drum. The explosion of the firecracker produced a large amount of gas, causing the air pressure inside the oil drum to increase instantly, which restored the oil drum to its original shape. this is called explosive forming, a metalworking technique in which an explosive charge is used. this method is generally much cheaper and faster than hydroforming that use high pressure water.
#interestingfacts #interesting #uniquefacts #unique

[arobertpetersen]

Pretty damn big "firecracker"!

[anghelofajardo]

The last dude must really love his job

[sohammahendrakar]

Someone got a bit too excited at the last one 💀

[stefanschleps]

This method is quick but probably reduces the tensile strength of the oil drum. Thats going to ruin your warranty! 😅

[sealteem]

Hydroforming is way more controlled and accurate than trying to decide what size "firecracker" to use.

[Minnadesu]

That's dynamite not a firecracker.

[rufusspradley]

M-80. It's a quarter stick of dynamite!

[JorgeGomez-cl]

It’s fun to see what people write when the narrator says the wrong thing 😂

[bernardengelsen]

So, how many firecrackers will it take to fix my mail box after getting hit with a bat? Lol

[martyshannon]

We don't even have Firecrackers that big in Texas. That ain't a Firecracker.

[OliveDoctor]

That firecracker has a super no compromises mindset "I'm no firecracker, call me mr dynamite"

[rj_the_mc]

That's how doctors look after they put the vest on you, then hit the X-Ray button

[pavesomsk]

These barrels gonna leak, since the cracks might've created micro fractures and forming it back in place might have broken the bent place

[Gastly_Ghost]

Bro just threw a firecracker in a bung hole 😂

[Blade-hfpo]

I know it's been repeated but, that is NOT a firecracker!

[SeanSchwifty]

Hydroforming vs. Explosive Forming for Metal Containers:

1. Hydroforming:

• Process:
Hydroforming uses high-pressure hydraulic fluid to press a metal blank into a die, shaping it into the desired form. It is commonly used in automotive and aerospace industries to create lightweight, structurally sound parts with complex geometries.
• Pros:
• High Precision: Hydroforming allows for the creation of parts with intricate shapes and smooth finishes, which is ideal for complex designs.
• Consistent Quality: Because the pressure is evenly distributed, the process results in uniform wall thickness and consistent product quality.
• Material Efficiency: Hydroforming allows for a more efficient use of materials, minimizing waste.
• Cost-Effective for Large Runs: Once the setup is complete, the process is relatively quick and cost-efficient for mass production.
• Cons:
• High Initial Costs: The machinery and dies required for hydroforming can be expensive to set up.
• Material Limitations: Hydroforming works best with ductile materials (like aluminum, stainless steel, etc.), so it may not be suitable for all metals.
• Slower than Explosive Forming for Large Parts: For extremely large metal parts, hydroforming might take more time compared to explosive forming due to the need for controlled high pressure over large surfaces.

2. Explosive Forming (Using Firecracker or Explosives):

• Process:
Explosive forming involves using a controlled explosion to force a metal blank into a die. The shockwave generated by the explosion creates enough force to shape the metal quickly. This process is typically used for forming large parts or unique shapes that are challenging to form through traditional methods.
• Pros:
• Capable of Forming Large Parts: Explosive forming is suitable for creating large components, especially where the part size makes hydroforming inefficient or costly.
• Lower Tooling Costs: Since it doesn’t require expensive dies, tooling costs are lower, making it more economical for small production runs.
• Forming of Hard Materials: Explosive forming can handle hard metals or metals that aren’t easily formed by traditional methods.
• Quick Process: The explosion-based method allows for rapid forming in a single step, especially for oversized parts.
• Cons:
• Safety Concerns: The use of explosives introduces significant safety risks. It requires careful handling, and the area must be evacuated or isolated during the process.
• Less Precision: The process is harder to control compared to hydroforming, resulting in potential inconsistencies in the final product, especially in terms of surface finish and thickness.
• Environmental Concerns: Explosive forming can cause noise pollution and air pressure disturbances in the surrounding environment.
• Limited to Specific Applications: Because of the nature of the process, explosive forming is not suitable for smaller or more intricate parts where high precision is required.

Comparison Summary:

• Precision and Consistency: Hydroforming is superior for precision and consistent quality, while explosive forming may result in rougher finishes and less consistent thickness.
• Safety: Hydroforming is much safer compared to the risks associated with handling explosives in explosive forming.
• Cost: Explosive forming has lower tooling costs and can be more economical for one-off or small production runs, while hydroforming is cost-effective for larger, more consistent production.
• Part Size: Explosive forming can handle larger parts that hydroforming might struggle with due to limitations of die size and pressure distribution.

For smaller, high-precision metal containers with a need for consistency and safety, hydroforming would be the better choice. For large parts or when budget constraints exist for low-volume production, explosive forming might be more efficient.

[Rickiye]

Those barrels may be smashed for a reason. May have contained chemicals

[alanz]

Why is this soo satisfying? I'm immediately addicted. I need more plz

[bryanpenaloza]

Why i find this hilarious 😂😂 reminds me of old boomerang cartoons 😂😂

[hagerz]

That's one Hell of a Firecracker 😂😂