Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical questions

[kerbiloid]

20 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

That missile doesn't even impact; it's designed to do that much damage simply by exploding directly over the target. It produced a shockwave so severe that it ripped the turret off the tank and sent it bouncing onto the ground in a ball of flames.

It just fires a penetrator from top, into the thin top armor plate.
It has two of them onboard.

Spoiler

Also the more flammable stuff is put into the tank before the filming, the more spectacular looks the movie.

Like cinema grenades (probably full of gasoline) and real life ones.

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by kerbiloid

[p1t1o]

22 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

So, I was under the impression that most antitank missiles are just penetrators; they punch through the armor and fill the inside of the tank with molten metal. There will be a chunk missing from the side of the tank and the insides will be shredded, but it's more or less intact.

Then I watched this:

Holy crap.

That missile doesn't even impact; it's designed to do that much damage simply by exploding directly over the target. It produced a shockwave so severe that it ripped the turret off the tank and sent it bouncing onto the ground in a ball of flames.

It's not entirely out of the question to imagine a miniaturized version, equipped with a depleted uranium or even osmium tip at the front to improve penetration. Even an explosion 1/10th as strong would absolutely obliterate a tank if it exploded partly inside.

(For reference, I was previously thinking of a HEAT missile, which would look more like this:)

A shaped charge missile could probably be made smaller than a TOW.

Those explosions...they are doing exactly what you said in the first part of your comment.

The missile that explodes above...it is a shaped charge too, projecting downwards to attack the weaker top armour.

The tank "brews up" not because the missile is so overpowered tha it can literally blast it apart, but because once you've punched a hole in the top, you dont have to pump much gas into a tank to flip off the turret. 

Dont forget that shaped charges are kinetic weapons, the spike that they project penetrates armour in exactly the same way as a long rod penetrator.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by p1t1o

[kerbiloid]

21 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

It's not entirely out of the question to imagine a miniaturized version, equipped with a depleted uranium or even osmium

Lol!
US taxpayers should know: they will pay for osmium penetrators after this idea appeared on KSP forum.

2 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

The tank "brews up" not because the missile is so overpowered, but because once you've punched a hole in the top, you dont have to pump much gas into a tank to flip off the turret. 

I believe, it brews up because of several bags of dynamite put inside.
Because usually the powder charges of additional (i.e. out of case) rounds do this.

[p1t1o]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

Lol!
US taxpayers should know: they will pay for osmium penetrators after this idea appeared on KSP forum.

Regarding osmium. Density is not the only factor. Uranium and tungsten are of roughly similar densities and hardness, but uranium projectiles can penetrate thicker armour.

This is because of the structural chemistry of uranium (something to do with a concept called "adiabatic shear bands") means that when the point "mushrooms" on impact with the armor surface, it forms a narrower "mushroom", boring a narrower hole, naturally, meaning that with a similar amount of kinetic energy, a deeper hole can be dug.

 

You will sometimes see this termed "self-sharpening" but be aware, "sharpness" is irrelevant at these energies, neither projectile retains a "sharp" point, but the uranium does not "spread" so much. This is not a trivial property of uranium merely being "stronger" or "harder" but a more involved combination of physical factors.

See page 20 of this document:

http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2001/ARL-TR-2395.pdf

[p1t1o]

Regarding Osmium again, after a discussion on mining at XKCD I have found another reason why Osmium would not be used in Kinetic projectiles...global production is less than 100kg per year.

And at $13,000 per kg, and with the average main battle tank kinetic rod massing ~20kg, each projectile would cost more than $250k. And you'd only be able to make 5 a year if you sequestered the total global production. Enough to arm about 2-3 tanks per decade.

For reference, a Tomahawk cruise missile costs about $1M.

Edited May 31, 2018 by p1t1o

[DAL59]

43 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

each projectile would cost more than $250k

Relatively cheap though.  

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

And at $13,000 per kg, and with the average main battle tank kinetic rod massing ~20kg, each projectile would cost more than $250k. And you'd only be able to make 5 a year if you sequestered the total global production. Enough to arm about 2-3 tanks per decade.

Penetrator itself afaik, weights much less: ~5..6 kg.

1 hour ago, p1t1o said:

global production is less than 100kg per year.

Ask Musk, he will found a new company making reusable osmium penetrators.
A boomerang-looking penetrator will return to the tank after hit.

Edited May 31, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Gargamel]

On 12/1/2017 at 12:24 AM, Diche Bach said:

The master programmer of the board said "not even close" and came up with an estimate that he thinks was probably even still an overestimate of the total number of instructions so far, and that was still many orders of magnitude less than the 10^80 number of fermions he quoted.

But here's something simple that will blow your mind, when put into perspective. 

Only about 20% of possible shuffles of a deck of 52 playing cards have ever been done.    I did the math quite some years ago on this, so I might be a tad off on that 20%.

But, simply, there are 52! combinations (permutations?) of a deck of cards. 

That's 8.066 x 10 ⁶⁷.   Only a dozen magnitudes shy of the number you quoted. 

But lets think about this.  

Modern decks of 52 cards have been around for 200 years or so.   Let's completely over estimate this number, and say there's  been 4 billion people, per year, over that same time frame.  And let's also say, the average person shuffles 50 times a year.  Some vastly more (casino dealers and habitual players) and some never, so 50 seems like a nice average (How many times a year do you shuffle a deck?).  (We're getting into Drake-esque territory here).

So 200 years x 4 billion people x 50 shuffles...

carry the 2....

That's 2 x 10¹³.  (Yup, still around 20%, give or take a bit)

Even if you increase the number of shuffles by a factor of 100, or reach back farther in history, it barely moves that number when compared to the number of possible shuffles.

So what's this mean is that when you shuffle a deck of cards, you are creating an order which has probably never been seen in the universe before. 

For perspective (from WolframAlpha) :

number of grains of sand on Earth: 10²⁰ - 10²⁴

Number of Stars: 10²⁴

Number of atoms in a human: 7 x 10²⁷

 

Even if you include the online gaming world, that will at best, raise the number of shuffles by only a couple factors of ten. 

 

[p1t1o]

49 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Penetrator itself afaik, weights much less: ~5..6 kg.

Alas, you are right, I looked at the wrong figure

Well that drops the price to only ~75k and now it will only take a single years worth of global production to arm one tank!

1 hour ago, DAL59 said:

Relatively cheap though.  

Even at $75k it would be significantly more expensive than current rounds ($5k - $10k mark)

 

49 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

A boomerang-looking penetrator will return to the tank after hit.

A fantastic idea.

What if make the penetrator rod 2km long, so you drive your tank until the tip is a few inches from enemy armour, on firing, the charge drives the rod a few feet forwards with great force. Reverse, reposition and repeat.

 

***

 

4 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Even if you include the online gaming world, that will at best, raise the number of shuffles by only a couple factors of ten. 

I encountered some large numbers over at XKCD (alot of crossover today), and its worth noting that casinos mostly use several decks combined.

With 4 or 5 decks the number of permutations reaches truly staggering numbers on the order of 1e300.

Im not sure if its relevant to your discussion but holy jeebus those numbers get large fast.

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by p1t1o

[Gargamel]

23 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

A fantastic idea.

Ok, I LOL'd at that one...

23 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

I encountered some large numbers over at XKCD (alot of crossover today), and its worth noting that casinos mostly use several decks combined.

With 4 or 5 decks the number of permutations reaches truly staggering numbers on the order of 1e300.

Im not sure if its relevant to your discussion but holy jeebus those numbers get large fast.

It does, and doesn't pertain.  I was restricting it to decks of 52 cards.  Adding just the jokers bumps it to 2.31 x10⁷¹, and now we're approaching particles in the universe territory.

A lot of brick and mortar casinos, for blackjack, use a continuous shuffle machine, that holds multiple decks, and the waste from every hand is reshuffled into the deck.  This negates any advantage a card counter might have.  I would assume an online casino would do the same, seeing as it's easier to code a single shuffle each hand, instead of tracking used cards. 

But the enormity of the situation strikes you when you hold that deck in the palm of your hand, and you realize the amount of complexity it entails, and the fact you can create something never seen before in the history of the universe..... in the palm of your hand.

 

---

Next question, how many years before it's more likely to be a shuffle that has already happened?

Well, we'll keep the 50 shuffles a year, but let's bump this to 40 billion people per year.

So half of 52! is 4 x 10⁶⁷ (I sadly used a calculator for that).

So 4x1067 divided by (50 shuffles x 40 billion) is...

dang....

2.02 x10⁵⁵  years....

whoa.... 

that's a long time.....

Somebody check that math, that can't be right.  If we did 20% in 200 years, we should do 40% after 400 years, yes?  Hmmmm.... 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Gargamel

[kerbiloid]

17 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Only about 20% of possible shuffles of a deck of 52 playing cards have ever been done.    I did the math quite some years ago on this, so I might be a tad off on that 20%.

But, simply, there are 52! combinations (permutations?) of a deck of cards. 

That's 8.066 x 10 ⁶⁷.   Only a dozen magnitudes shy of the number you quoted. 

Also the casinos can save a lot of time if instead of long and dull playing, the casino computer just looks at the cards distribution and calculate result of all future parties for the gamer's amount of money.
A second of patience, and the player doesn't lose the whole night, but immediately either gets estimated prize, or leaves all his money.
This is respectful to gamer, as computer presumes he is a great master and never makes wrong turns, just cards may be bad.

[Gargamel]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Also the casinos can save a lot of time if instead of long and dull playing, the casino computer just looks at the cards distribution and calculate result of all future parties for the gamer's amount of money.
A second of patience, and the player doesn't lose the whole night, but immediately either gets estimated prize, or leaves all his money.
This is respectful to gamer, as computer presumes he is a great master and never makes wrong turns, just cards may be bad. 

But where's the fun in that? 

And nobody would play, as the house's edge would become very apparent, very quickly.   At least when you are making the decisions, the illusion of control is there. 

And I think you just described a slot machine....

[kerbiloid]

26 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

What if make the penetrator rod 2km long, so you drive your tank until the tip is a few inches from enemy armour, on firing, the charge drives the rod a few feet forwards with great force. Reverse, reposition and repeat.

Wasn't that you who said there is only 100 kg / year available.
Please, stay realistic.
We can just this

Spoiler

 

1 minute ago, Gargamel said:

But where's the fun in that? 

If you win - in the pockets. If not - in the saved time.

3 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

And I think you just described a slot machine....

A slot machine spends time while spinning. I suggest to save it instead.

[p1t1o]

10 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Wasn't that you who said there is only 100 kg / year available.
Please, stay realistic.
We can just this

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Anyway gold is our best bet, as we all presumably know, this can penetrate any armour known to man:

[kerbiloid]

8 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

this can penetrate any armour known to man:

Or at least buy it.

[wumpus]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

A slot machine spends time while spinning. I suggest to save it instead.

I strongly suspect they speed up as much as legally allowed as play continues.  Go fast enough and the player will hit "new game" and clear out a win...

[magnemoe]

16 minutes ago, wumpus said:

I strongly suspect they speed up as much as legally allowed as play continues.  Go fast enough and the player will hit "new game" and clear out a win...

You want the exiting phase there you can win or loose, it would be more boring if instant,
This time is probably very well thought out
You would also run over budget faster so you has to do something else and probably leave the casino, you can always add more machines if its an queue. 

Now if you are farming as in doing rescue missions in KSP or killing mobs in an MMO you want maximum efficiency, and your time is more important than in game resources. 
 

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Anyway gold is our best bet, as we all presumably know, this can penetrate any armour known to man:

You can buy much better looking and functional gold plated guns. And you would obviously use plating and not make the gun of gold, both the trigger and grip looks horrible. 
Remember you have to hold it for an long time aiming at your enemy delivering you monologue so an good grip is important. 
 

[p1t1o]

3 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

You can buy much better looking and functional gold plated guns. And you would obviously use plating and not make the gun of gold, both the trigger and grip looks horrible. 
Remember you have to hold it for an long time aiming at your enemy delivering you monologue so an good grip is important. 
 

You dont recognise the particular one? Its a particular one

OMG am I OLD?

 

Spoiler

Its Scaramangas "golden gun" from "The Man With The Golden Gun" James Bond movie. It is a sort of stealth gun which is assembled from a golden fountain pen and a golden lighter.

In the N64 game "Goldeneye", it was an available firearm in multiplayer and could one-shot anybody. (thus the joke about armour piercing)

This, along with playing as "Oddjob" (a character [from a whole other james bond title] who was shorter than all the others, meaning that most shots went over his head) were often considered "cheating" by everyone who didnt own an N64 and "totally fair" by your one friend who did.

 

[magnemoe]

1 minute ago, p1t1o said:

You dont recognise the particular one? Its a particular one

OMG am I OLD?

 

  Hide contents

Its Scaramangas "golden gun" from "The Man With The Golden Gun" James Bond movie. It is a sort of stealth gun which is assembled from a golden fountain pen and a golden lighter.

In the N64 game "Goldeneye", it was an available firearm in multiplayer and could one-shot anybody. (thus the joke about armour piercing)

This, along with playing as "Oddjob" (a character [from a whole other james bond title] who was shorter than all the others, meaning that most shots went over his head) were often considered "cheating" by everyone who didnt own an N64 and "totally fair" by your one friend who did.

 

Yes then you say it I remember it from the movie, just did not remember it as an stealth gun. Liked the cigar gun better, assume it was an gyrojet projectile in an plastic tube. 
and it makes sense for an game to make it an artifact weapon. 
you could also go the Fallout new Vegas route and make it an stealth gun you could get past guards but that depend on game mechanics having guards check for guns. 

[Fraston]

I once read an article about that alternate universes are created when you make a decision. I wonder if this applies to thoughts, one universe where I never thought about making this question? RRRRRRGGHHHHHHNNNNGGGGGGGG.... IT GIVES ME A STINKIN HEADACHE.

[p1t1o]

6 minutes ago, Fraston said:

I once read an article about that alternate universes are created when you make a decision. I wonder if this applies to thoughts, one universe where I never thought about making this question? RRRRRRGGHHHHHHNNNNGGGGGGGG.... IT GIVES ME A STINKIN HEADACHE.

Not only that, but if you follow that interpretation of the many-worlds theorem, then there must be a new one created any time there is a chance-event with more than one outcome, down to the quantum level...

...the antidote is the purely deterministic universe in which the entire lifetime of the universe is decided by the initial starting conditions and every event is therefore pre-determined, like snooker balls on a table, with only one possible outcome (thus no alternate universes). Just dont let the fact that would also mean your own thoughts (including this conversation) and every "decision" you ever make are also predetermined, keep you up at night

Edited May 31, 2018 by p1t1o

[wumpus]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

You would also run over budget faster so you has to do something else and probably leave the casino, you can always add more machines if its an queue.

Plenty of riverboat casinos in the US have realized this and can often go an hour between reaching port and letting people off.  I really don't recommend these places.

More likely the "riverboat" has a permanent foundation to a sand barge, but I've seen a few that you could get stuck on.  I tried it once, and ran out of "mad money" much faster than expected and never returned (and carefully avoided the "cruising variety" after reading the fine print.

[p1t1o]

40 minutes ago, wumpus said:

and carefully avoided the "cruising variety" after reading the fine print.

Never heard of these before, whats the danger?

[Gargamel]

11 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Never heard of these before, whats the danger?

As he mentioned, the boat leaves the dock, sails up and down the river, and meanwhile, you've lost all your gambling money, hours before the boat returns to dock, and you get bored.