|
I dunno, russian air force uses 23mm cannons in their fighters. You'd just need a scenario where that ammo type would be optimal.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:I don't think anyone's manufacturing a weapon in 23mm RHNB, even if it would be pretty cool. It would actually be very very warm 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Probably Meth. Nah it's schizophrenia. I mean there was probably also some drug use involved but I don't think that's the primary issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:Those weren't meth sores on his face. Though he did die in Michigan so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
zedprime posted:Not a health physics expert but I doubt the face sores are nuclear related. I always thought the sort of dose that can cause a physical skin response is going to be the size that liquefies your organs in a case of acute radiation poisoning. This pertains only to his mugshot after being arrested for jacking smoke detectors but police suspected the sores were due to radiation. It's more fun believing it's true. Also his mom's house was a superfund site.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Cop Porn Popper posted:I dunno, russian air force uses 23mm cannons in their fighters. You'd just need a scenario where that ammo type would be optimal. Red-hot cannon balls were a thing during the age of sail. (If you can believe C.S.Forester.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Zopotantor posted:Red-hot cannon balls were a thing during the age of sail. (If you can believe C.S.Forester.) Dunno about red-hot, but heated shot actually was used, going back to the 1500s. Apparently in the 1860s they reached the apex with molten iron-filled shells  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It would be like Red Hot Nickel Ball: The Earth I prefer RHMB. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plqdB8Xv8AM
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Ah, the '90s, where Virtual Reality, Cold Fusion, Flying cars were just around the corner, for real this time guys. probably pretty useful for geothermal energy purposes
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:probably pretty useful for geothermal energy purposes If it made a traditional hole, sure, but it doesn't. It digs through the earth by melting it, so what you get is a slag pit of extreme depth. The needle shape (chosen to minimize drag) makes it even less likely you'd get a usable hole. I mean, nobody's ever done something like this so we don't have math to describe it, but as the molten rock above it cools I doubt you'd get any kind of stable excavation out of it. Even if you could use the hole for a geothermal heat exchange there'd be the residual radiation from the reactor to worry about, and depending on how the reactor is built that could be anything from barely above background to "oh my god, this rock is made of corium".
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:If it made a traditional hole, sure, but it doesn't. It digs through the earth by melting it, so what you get is a slag pit of extreme depth. The needle shape (chosen to minimize drag) makes it even less likely you'd get a usable hole. I mean, nobody's ever done something like this so we don't have math to describe it, but as the molten rock above it cools I doubt you'd get any kind of stable excavation out of it. This pretty much describes Deep Borehole Disposal as I understand it. A borehole is dug in a geologically favorable area a few km 'til the rock starts getting hot and plasticky, spent fuel rods dropped down into it, then its capped off. Heat from the rods supposedly helps melt the rock as the corium settles and it's all done in a location where, on a geological scale, tectonic activity will carry it down into the mantle. IIRC the UK looked into it and it's totally feasible but nobody wants to pay for the massive initial costs. Also whatever you send down there is gone forever, and spent nuclear fuel might be useful again someday. But the whole point is that it is a 1-way trip, the hole seals itself off. It exists just long enough to to dump poo poo down there, then immediately filled with steel and concrete so poo poo can't come back up. And the hole can only be a few hundred millimeters in diameter, so there's probably no practical reason to drill that deep unless you have something less than 300mm wide that really, really needs to be sent straight back to Hell forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Syd Midnight posted:IIRC the UK looked into it and it's totally feasible but nobody wants to pay for the massive initial costs. The US wanted to test it in North Dakota, but I think protests have stopped that for now; the wiki article suggests the holes can be 50cm wide now. http://www.inforum.com/news/3935017-officials-raise-deep-concern-proposed-drilling-project-near-rugby-could-lead-nuclear
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
I wonder if people will get all nimby if they dropped toxic waste down a giant hole like that. Lets return it to mother gaia's loving embrace!
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Syd Midnight posted:This pretty much describes Deep Borehole Disposal as I understand it. A borehole is dug in a geologically favorable area a few km 'til the rock starts getting hot and plasticky, spent fuel rods dropped down into it, then its capped off. Heat from the rods supposedly helps melt the rock as the corium settles and it's all done in a location where, on a geological scale, tectonic activity will carry it down into the mantle. IIRC the UK looked into it and it's totally feasible but nobody wants to pay for the massive initial costs. Also whatever you send down there is gone forever, and spent nuclear fuel might be useful again someday. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:I wonder if people will get all nimby if they dropped toxic waste down a giant hole like that. Lets return it to mother gaia's loving embrace! Short answer is yes. People have a (largely irrational) fear of radioactive and toxic waste. Most radioactive waste is harmless unless you ate it, and the stuff that is dangerous (High Level Waste) is handled with ridiculous levels of care, most of it not leaving the site where it was generated for decades. As far as non-radioactive toxic waste, it really depends on what it is. Fibrous asbestos would be handled completely differently than methyl-mercury, for example. Nobody wants to live next to a disposal facility if they can help it though, no matter how safe it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
I wonder if as telecommuting increases there will be room for a waste disposal company or government effort to settle and incorporate an area of nerds and nihilists amenable to hazardous waste disposal in exchange for cash/tax breaks/etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 00:09
|
|
Kwyndig posted:Short answer is yes. People have a (largely irrational) fear of radioactive and toxic waste. Most radioactive waste is harmless unless you ate it, and the stuff that is dangerous (High Level Waste) is handled with ridiculous levels of care, most of it not leaving the site where it was generated for decades. Well, they should just say they are carrying kitten farts and puppy drool
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:Well, they should just say they are carrying kitten farts and puppy drool Kitten farts are the loving worst.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Bertrand Hustle posted:Kitten farts are the loving worst. I know, those are terrible on the olfactory scale. Ultimately harmless though except for the possibility of toxoplasmosis, which is generally agreed to be not hazardous except to the unborn or those with compromised immune systems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:I wonder if people will get all nimby if they dropped toxic waste down a giant hole like that. Lets return it to mother gaia's loving embrace! Let me quote myself from the post immediately above yours. ulmont posted:The US wanted to test it in North Dakota, but I think protests have stopped that for now; the wiki article suggests the holes can be 50cm wide now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
50cm... that's almost wide enough for inconvenient bodies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
You planning on killing Chris Christie there, bub?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
GENDERED SLUR posted:You planning on killing Chris Christie there, bub? Why even bother when angina will do the job for you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Posting to reveal the phantom post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Bertrand Hustle posted:Kitten farts are the loving worst. http://i.imgur.com/rvs57HC.gifv
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:50cm... that's almost wide enough for inconvenient bodies. You're not trying hard enough then. 300mm is plenty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Syd Midnight posted:This pretty much describes Deep Borehole Disposal as I understand it. A borehole is dug in a geologically favorable area a few km 'til the rock starts getting hot and plasticky, spent fuel rods dropped down into it, then its capped off. Heat from the rods supposedly helps melt the rock as the corium settles and it's all done in a location where, on a geological scale, tectonic activity will carry it down into the mantle. IIRC the UK looked into it and it's totally feasible but nobody wants to pay for the massive initial costs. Also whatever you send down there is gone forever, and spent nuclear fuel might be useful again someday. What's the diameter of a politician?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Keiya posted:What's the diameter of a politician? Whole or mulched? Because here's a handy gif I just saw in another thread... http://i.imgur.com/idzMn3K.mp4
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
"Injuries incompatible with life"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:beryllium makes the second best thermally conductive insulator (it has the second-highest thermal conductivity of any non-metal, behind diamond) and destroys your lungs and gives you cancer if you inhale it
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
I was talking about SpaceX's on-the-pad explosion and how they figure it was due to oxygen solidification, so I went and looked up the various phases of solid oxygen and, welp, when you compress it hard enough it turns red: Because the O2 turns into O8:  Naturally, "Liquid oxygen is already used as an oxidant in rockets, and it has been speculated that red oxygen could make an even better oxidant, because of its higher energy density."
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Abyssal Squid posted:I was talking about SpaceX's on-the-pad explosion and how they figure it was due to oxygen solidification, so I went and looked up the various phases of solid oxygen and, welp, when you compress it hard enough it turns red: How the gently caress can oxygen have 3 bonds? High energy chemistry makes me confused.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Anything's possible if you can imagine it! Dumping whole heaps of energy into the system doesn't hurt either. Xenon chemistry comes to mind, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:How the gently caress can oxygen have 3 bonds? If you try hard enough you can make things have more bonds than they're comfortable with!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
GenericOverusedName posted:If you try hard enough you can make things have more bonds than they're comfortable with!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
That's the basis of open marriages!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
If it was described by normal orbitals and bond theory it wouldn't be very energetic, now would it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Abyssal Squid posted:I was talking about SpaceX's on-the-pad explosion and how they figure it was due to oxygen solidification, so I went and looked up the various phases of solid oxygen and, welp, when you compress it hard enough it turns red: So what sort of performance do you suppose you could get from a rocket with this as the oxidizer and solid metallic hydrogen as the fuel?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
ol qwerty bastard posted:So what sort of performance do you suppose you could get from a rocket with this as the oxidizer and solid metallic hydrogen as the fuel? That depends on if you want the rocket to still exist more than 5 seconds after takeoff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
ol qwerty bastard posted:So what sort of performance do you suppose you could get from a rocket with this as the oxidizer and solid metallic hydrogen as the fuel? Only thing I can say here: drat glad I am not that grad student.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 19:14
|
|