DAL59

Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical questions

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, RizzoTheRat said:

Modern ceramic armour plates can stop a 7.62 round at short range (google Stephen Tschiderer).  A NATO 7.62 round leaves the muzzle with a about 3.5kJ of energy.  Google suggests real war hammers weighed around 4lbs, so assuming 2kg, you'd need to swing it at about 94 mph to hit with the same energy as a point blank 7.62.


That's a bit of apples-to-oranges Rizzo...  Modern armor is designed to stop penetration.  War hammers and other mass weapons aren't meant to penetrate in the first place.  They're shock weapons, meant to bruise and break bone.

That being said, modern ceramic armor will spread the impact energy of a mass weapon over a larger area thus sharply reducing it's effectiveness.  Best to swing for the limbs, joints, and head.  Even if a helmet and/or face plate spreads the impact out, you're still going to cause the head to move (potentially disorienting the wearer) and apply considerable force to the neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, DAL59 said:

If there was a cave made of potatoes, what enzyme could I spray that would dissolve the potatoes and

a) Not cause a fire

b) Allow me to dig a tunnel wide enough to go through at a hundred feet a day

c) Be easy to store

 

If the potato cave was vertical, I would say Sulfuric Acid.  Easy is a relative term, so large glass containers seems easy enough.   Pour out enough on the spuds, and stand back.  A chem major probably would know a better, even perhaps safer, acid to work with for the potatoes though. 

Now if the cave is horizontal, acids won't work, Gravity doesn't go left.     I would then go with very high pressure water.   A strong enough pressure washer would cut right though the taters.  100ft a day would probably be very easy to achieve. 

 

EDIT:  Noticing now you said enzyme, so I may have not properly answered the question.   But your question does bring some others to mind.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this was some school question, they could mean Amylase.

And water.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, RizzoTheRat said:

Modern ceramic armour plates can stop a 7.62 round at short range (google Stephen Tschiderer).  A NATO 7.62 round leaves the muzzle with a about 3.5kJ of energy.  Google suggests real war hammers weighed around 4lbs, so assuming 2kg, you'd need to swing it at about 94 mph to hit with the same energy as a point blank 7.62.

Apparently an average golfer can hit the ball with the club head doing around 90mph, while a pro can get up to 125mph.  Given that a hammer's presumably going to have a shorter handle than a golf club, and be at least 4 or 5 times the weight, I'd have thought it unlikely anyone could swing one at 94mph. 

However, a 7.62 round has a momentum of approx 9kg*m/s whereas a 2kg warhammer swung at 94mph would have momentum of 84kg*m/s.

Now the bullet has more kinetic energy, but the warhammer is going to apply a much larger force to the target.

This means that a bullet will penetrate much further (due to higher kinetic energy, required to break bonds) but that the hammer will accelerate the target harder, to a higher velocity (read - crush/impact damage).

Practically speaking, this means that though a 7.62mm bullet has high kinetic energy, you dont have to match that energy with a 2kg warhammer to damage a human target a similar amount. And of course it does not have to penetrate armour.

Yup, the difference between momentum and KE bakes my noodle too.

Edited by p1t1o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, p1t1o said:

However, a 7.62 round has a momentum of approx 9kg*m/s whereas a 2kg warhammer swung at 94mph would have momentum of 84kg*m/s.

Now the bullet has more kinetic energy, but the warhammer is going to apply a much larger force to the target.

This means that a bullet will penetrate much further (due to higher kinetic energy, required to break bonds) but that the hammer will accelerate the target harder, to a higher velocity (read - crush/impact damage).

Practically speaking, this means that though a 7.62mm bullet has high kinetic energy, you dont have to match that energy with a 2kg warhammer to damage a human target a similar amount. And of course it does not have to penetrate armour.

Yup, the difference between momentum and KE bakes my noodle too.

Damage is often a function of shear force/pressure rather than gross kinetic energy or momentum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Damage is often a function of shear force/pressure rather than gross kinetic energy or momentum.

Yes, kinetic energy is only really applicable under certain circumstances, for certain things. Its not the only variable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also you can noose the hammer around his neck.

Spoiler

media.nl?id=8426&c=4456116&h=d7734bc4320

Upgrade. 

Spoiler

Gigli hammer. 

81ZYuTYh33L._SL1500_.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 12:47 PM, magnemoe said:

And that above is an slege.

It’s also a reference to a good game ;)

On 2/18/2019 at 12:47 PM, magnemoe said:

War hammers was only in use then full plate armor was as popular.

I had someone rather metal in mind.

2518.jpg

Melees between conventional, endoskeletal Terminators are a scenery-destroying utter bore because both combatants are effectively indestructible... not unlike medieval knights of the white plate era. I thought anout at least knocking some wires loose with something fairly low-tech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DDE said:

It’s also a reference to a good game ;)

I had someone rather metal in mind.

2518.jpg

Melees between conventional, endoskeletal Terminators are a scenery-destroying utter bore because both combatants are effectively indestructible... not unlike medieval knights of the white plate era. I thought anout at least knocking some wires loose with something fairly low-tech.

Here melee weapons would be extremely good. Lots of exposed and vulnerable stuff you will hit hard while spraying with an assault rifle would not do much damage. 
Note that I would add armor on terminator if not uses with skin to infiltrate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do the bare terminators have steel teeth?
Do the human rebels have all-teeth implants?

Spoiler

1450087507186215911.jpg

 

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Why do the bare terminators have steel teeth?
Do the human rebels have all-teeth implants?

  Reveal hidden contents

1450087507186215911.jpg

 

Do you know how much a full set of veneers costs?

PS: Im not sure where they come from, or if they are "canon" or whatever, but if you google image search "terminator exoskeleton teeth" you get a bunch of pics of them with real teeth.

And they look....unsettling.

8zzel.jpg

Edited by p1t1o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

Do you know how much a full set of veneers costs?

Punched steel crowns (low-class classics of XX cent) -1000..2000 RUR ~15..30 USD per piece.
Metal+plastic ~60..70 USD/pc.
From better metals ~70..300 USD/pc

So, as you don't need the rebel's teeth live longer than the rebel itself, and you don't need to care about his wisdom teeth, 28 * 30 ~= 1000 USD/rebel. 15 are the crowns themselves, 30 is a dentist's price.

(I've paid ~2500 USD for my ceramic bridges and metal crowns)

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

"terminator exoskeleton teeth" you get a bunch of pics of them with real teeth.

Or rebels wear ceramic teeth, as they are looking too fine compared to a real human's teeth.

Edited by kerbiloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, now that the nuclear fallout has settled...

All else equal, what non-nuclear submarine is better:

  • A traditional one, using lots of state-of-the-art lithium-poly batteries, with an Elon Musk bobblehead at the helsman station;
  • One with a secondary fuel cell and tanks of lOx and compressed or liquid hydrogen stockpiled via electrolysis;
  • One that ditches the fuel cell and uses a water-cooled hydrolox turbine;
  • One that instead tries to run the usual diesels off an onboard oxygen supply;
  • (honourary mention of Grigory Adamov) One that uses pulse-detonation hydrolox rocket motors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DDE said:

All else equal, what non-nuclear submarine is better:

That depends on the mission...  Are you talking a coastal submarine (AKA "manned mine")?  Or are you talking something intended to operate at longer ranges?  It also depends on your intended tactical environment...  Sitting at a geographical choke point?  Or hunting in the open ocean?  Etc... etc...

There is no such thing as "all else being equal", warships are designed with a metric buttload of parameters kept in mind - many not obvious.

And honestly, the jury is still out to which AIP system(s) will win the race.  The field is fairly young and the amount of operational experience limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DDE said:

All else equal, what non-nuclear submarine is better:

Uruketo.
It can refuel itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

That depends on the mission...  Are you talking a coastal submarine (AKA "manned mine")?  Or are you talking something intended to operate at longer ranges?  It also depends on your intended tactical environment...  Sitting at a geographical choke point?  Or hunting in the open ocean?  Etc... etc...

There is no such thing as "all else being equal", warships are designed with a metric buttload of parameters kept in mind - many not obvious.

And honestly, the jury is still out to which AIP system(s) will win the race.  The field is fairly young and the amount of operational experience limited.

API subs are best in defending, they lack the idiotic range, speed or endurance an nuclear sub has but is less noisy. 
So if your focus is defending an area they win out, they are also cheaper. 
If you want something who can operate all over an ocean, keep up with an carrier group and operate inside enemy territory for an extended time you want an nuclear one. 
Yes you have the option to give an nuclear sub AIP capability. yes this increase size and complexity but add some extra capability. 

Note that the line between torpedo and mine might blur out. release an torpedo from an plane or sub, has it move slowly to location and listen to the sound of an list of ships. 
Yes this has the downside that it might blow up the enemy ship after the peace treaty was signed :)
Yes that one was an issue during the age of sail as it might take months for the news of the peace to reach raiders out in the colonies but less popular today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

If you want something who can operate all over an ocean, keep up with an carrier group and operate inside enemy territory for an extended time you want an nuclear one. 

That’s debatable. Carrier groups are limited by their non-nuclear escorts, and subs at snorkel depth are about as fast.

Unless I’m misreading my sources and modern AIPs have ditched the diesels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While a sub might be "attached" to a battlegroup, they do not keep station with it, or come anywhere near it. A sub travelling at ship cruise speeds is a sitting duck that cant see. The sub will travel days or weeks ahead and do its sub thing well in advance of the CVBG arriving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DDE said:

That’s debatable. Carrier groups are limited by their non-nuclear escorts, and subs at snorkel depth are about as fast.

Unless I’m misreading my sources and modern AIPs have ditched the diesels.

They has not, still carrier groups are designed to be fast and non nuclear subs tend to not be. 
Note that this is an 100 year old story, even back during WW1 the idea of having subs who traveled with the main fleet and then move up in front was an obvious benefit. 
Say Germany had an submarine screen at Jutland :) 
Today it should work, it would require an larger sub because you need more fuel and larger engines but don't think any has done it as you could just as well go nuclear. 
Also you want an sub to move more independent, the carrier escort is to keep enemies away from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s the optimal number of arms a human should have?

sk-2017_04_featured_listing_mobile.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Idk, "should have" is difficult to interpret. But the blueprint for the tetrapod skeleton is pretty explicit about that :cool:

Edit: Trying an answer: always one more ... ?

Edited by Green Baron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

What’s the optimal number of arms a human should have?

For raising kids? At least 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/24/2019 at 12:04 PM, DAL59 said:

How is borosilicate flexible glass manufactured?  How hard would it be to do a crude recreation of https://www.sgpinc.com/materials/borosilicate/corning-willow-glass/ with manual glass blowing equipment?  

The ingredients for the glass typically come in the form of powders which can be blended, melted (1200C), and extruded to shape by pouring through a narrow opening. If poured vertically, the glass thins slightly as it falls, much as a stream of water flowing from the faucet does. Though glass in this thin-sheet form can be further drawn, no drawing is required for the ~200um size. As always, once solidified the glass needs to be either cooled very slowly or annealed to relieve internal stresses. Corning then often strengthens the surface of their glass by running it through an ion-exchange 'bath' of molten potassium nitrate (300C), which swaps out the glass' sodium ions for bigger potassium ions creating a uniform compressive stress . Edit: Willow glass is apparently Alkali free, so not a candidate for potassium ion exchange!

Making this thin-sheet form factor is very common- The typical microscope cover slip (#1.5) is actually the same thickness as willow glass, but massively less flexible! I think the hard part of recreating willow glass would be finding the secret blend of 30 spices Corning uses to make their glass as tough and flexible as it is!

Edited by Cunjo Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sh1pman said:

What’s the optimal number of arms a human should have?

An expendable or a reusable species?

6 hours ago, Cunjo Carl said:

For raising kids? At least 7.

One per every cerebral hemisphere.

So, 7 cerebral hemispheres.

With 7 eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.