- cross-posted to:
- technik@feddit.org
- badnews
- technology
- technology@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- technik@feddit.org
- badnews
- technology
- technology@hexbear.net
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
I think there may be a couple edits needed in your comment. Reread slowly and get back to us.
No, it doesn’t. The battery itself is not the source of the explosion, it’s the explosive hidden inside it.
A regular battery cannot be made to explode in this way.
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
This really should be the unofficial name of places like lemmy and reddit
Fun fact, a group of pedants is called a flem. To use it in a sentence: “the party was ruined by a flem of pedants”.
I would say that’s an accurate description for a barbie doll that explodes personally.
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
That does not make them exploding batteries, it had explosives in them. A suicide bomber is not an explosive human.
A suicide bomber is not an explosive human but they are an exploding human.
deleted by creator
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.
It’s a needed distinction because the Israeli committed more war crimes with what they did.
Do bombs explode? Or is it the explosives inside of them that are exploding?
JFC Christ, does anyone know where the nearest ATM Machine is?
Jesus Fried Chicken Christ
It’s also a big ass war crime. And if you did it habitually as anyone other than the West you could expect a visit from the US military. Inside the West you’d likely end up in prison. Except Israel. Israel is just immune to everything because uhhh… Because… Well nobody actually has a good reason.
Because people are scared to be seen as an anti-Semite if you are critical of a Jewish state and their wrongdoings.
This is how Jeremy Corbyn got slammed as being an anti-Semite across the media and eventually kicked out of the labour party.
deleted by creator
Everyone’s had dickhead friends
The jewish chronicle to thank for that.
Even though your edit clarified it, I wish we’d stop calling them “exploding batteries”. The battery isn’t the explosive, it’s the explosives that were hidden in the device. I’ve already encountered far too many morons describing conspiracies where the big bad government could make your iPhone explode.
Title felt misleading.
but the article is about exploding batteries, no?
That’s like saying exploding cars when you’re really talking about a bomb placed in a car…
“A bomb going 80 mph on the highway exploded.”
Doesn’t give the right information.
And if we’re being pedantic, when a bomb explodes, so does everything around it. Exploding doesn’t require a chemical reaction. It’s the act of tearing apart quickly. So yes, the car exploded.
That’s in English though. Other languages may be different.
I wish we’d stop calling them “exploding batteries”. The battery isn’t the explosive, it’s the explosives that were hidden in the device.
Do you want to stop calling them exploding pagers too? How about other exploding things? And what should https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions be renamed to? Maybe 2024 Lebanon explosions of explosives inside of pagers? 🙄
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 the article? It sounds like you didn’t.
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).
You are inferring what someone meant, and then applying some super pedantic reasoning.
When manufacturing pagers, that includes the pager electronics, the case, and the battery.
Wasn’t exploding batteries
The batteries themselves unmodified, standard batteries were not somehow hacked to explode. At some point in the manufacturing of the pagers which includes the battery, explosives were included.
You are inferring what someone meant, and then applying some super pedantic reasoning.
I think I am inferring correctly, especially since the person you’re talking about replied “of course not” to my question about if they read the article.
alrighty then. Dig your heels in.
i encourage you to re-read the original comment in this thread after reading the article 😂
Most other people wont be reading it either so I don’t see an issue with pointing out the obvious misconception people could make based on the headline that talks about exploding batteries.
Of course not, what did you expect?
Of course not, what did you expect?
I encourage you to, it’s pretty interesting.
The post content should’ve been in the actual post. No offence.
Sending out IEDs that will probably explode in a supermarket and kill civilians is generally considered a war crime. So far 2 kids killed in Beirut by the Israeli bombs in devices.
Exterminating the next generation of people who would live on the land they want to steal is the goal.
I don’t think terrorists care about the people’s trust in everyday things
We don’t see exploding batteries more because most militaries are better about securing their supply chain.
The attack hit many civilians. For militaires it might be feasible to secure their chain. For terror attacks, which this was, it would be far more difficult.
Really glad to hear the dead 8 year old girl was Khamas. I’m sure the dozen children that will be shot in the head today will be relieved once they find out they were Khamas as well and deserved to be shot in the head.
Did you hit your head? This comment makes no sense
What part of this comment on an israeli terror attack that mostly killed and harmed civillians confused you little buddy?
… the location? Hezbollah is not Hamas. Lebanon is not Gaza.
Did anyone tell israel hezbollah isn’t hamas? I know they have a hard time telling brown people apart.
Context: bunniestudios.com is run by bunnie, the guy who was involved with the hardware side of breaking DRM on the original XBox; he later went into consumer electronics manufacturing.
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.
It doesn’t matter that it’s written in the article you took it out of context and then made it the title thus changing the meaning of the sentence.
I have had this conversation with so many people who seem to be under the mistaken delusion that any and all batteries can be made explosive, and you editorializing the title like that is massively unhelpful.
But I don’t want my devices to be bombs
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.
The type of explosive used in this is not a high explosive. If put in a fire it would have exploded
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
Yeah that has getting put on a list written all over it …
It depends on the explosive, C-4, and I think all plastic explosives, will burn in a fire.
Did you read the article? It sounds like you didn’t.
Are you able to say anything but that?
Not capable of saying anything else.
deleted by creator
I’ll never look at my phone the same way again
It’s not just the batteries, you need a way to blow them up remotely and reliably.
This wasn’t just some wonky batteries shoved into legit devices. This was an entire operation to make fake pagers and walkie talkies. The batteries were probably the only legit things in them.
Fortunately these are simple devices that you can probably replicate the guts of with a few dollars of off the shelf parts. You’re not going to be able to fake an iPhone like this. Cheaper to just drop bombs at that point. And tbh, if it was something expensive like an iPhone, Hezbollah wouldn’t have bought a thousand of them.
