|
JFC
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:48 |
|
|
Water pressure (or any high pressure system) is nothing to gently caress with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin is sort of the opposite effect (some people going from 9 atm to 1 atm just about as fast)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:In some states asking for your password is explicitly illegal. Federally you can at least make a reasonable argument that it's likely to violate the website's ToS while engaged in interstate commerce and is thus probably not kosher under some federal statute or other. Private sector employers should definitely not be asking, and you have very reasonable grounds to say no. They don't ask permission. There are varying degrees to which potential employers are aggressive in getting access to your personal data without permission. The degree to which you can open-source this poo poo is terrifying, often they're not even doing anything illegal (and often they can just buy data wholesale from FB). The question is usually more in terms of how much damage you can do in the job you're trying to get. Notable that this applies to the likes of Google and FB but not to the likes of Deloitte and Douche; that's how the Snowdens and Reality Winners of the world do what they do. Big Tech is actually better at policing their own employees than government contractors whose job it is, as far as I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
This is exactly what I wanted to read before bed  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
When a sub implodes like that does it end up in a bunch of little pieces or does it stay relatively intact like a crinkled up beer can?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:31
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:When a sub implodes like that does it end up in a bunch of little pieces or does it stay relatively intact like a crinkled up beer can? Someone with access to a pressure chamber should test this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
I would think mostly one much smaller piece.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
History has probably answered this, and by history I mean probably the Russians, but when a sub implodes that hard, that fast, is there any chance of nuclear warheads going off? I don't know much about nuclear weapons, but I understand there's something called critical mass and doesn't density play a part? Sounds like it might apply.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
simplefish posted:History has probably answered this, and by history I mean probably the Russians, but when a sub implodes that hard, that fast, is there any chance of nuclear warheads going off? I don't know much about nuclear weapons, but I understand there's something called critical mass and doesn't density play a part? Sounds like it might apply. You'd be (pleasantly) surprised how hard it is for a nuclear weapon to go off accidentally*. There are multiple safeties and beyond that, it takes a very specific kind of explosion at a very specific time which is calculated to an insanely specific time otherwise it won't cause a nuclear explosion. It's more than just "take plutonium, add pressure and then run" *there was that close call when almost every safety on a nuclear bomb was deactivated and I'm sure that caused some brown pants. I'm also quite possibly misremembering
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:Someone with access to a pressure chamber should test this. Not quite the same thing, but... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
I'm not a physics person, but just thinking about order or magnitudes of velocities of metal collapsing vs explosively imploding an incredibly highly engineered and shaped charge around an equally highly engineered and machined piece of whatever the nuclear material of the day is, probably not. It would probably just crush the core and maybe leak some radiation? As far as I understand it you can only really achieve the critical mass explosivly which 'should' be much more force than the outside of the sub collapsing onto the nukes and then collapsing onto the fizzle material. I'm probably off for some reason here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:When a sub implodes like that does it end up in a bunch of little pieces or does it stay relatively intact like a crinkled up beer can? Thresher was shredded by its implosion, so in some cases at least it's the former.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Water pressure (or any high pressure system) is nothing to gently caress with. There's pictures from the Byford Dolphin investigative team roaming around the internet of what happened to the crew. They are not pleasant to look at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
simplefish posted:History has probably answered this, and by history I mean probably the Russians, but when a sub implodes that hard, that fast, is there any chance of nuclear warheads going off? I don't know much about nuclear weapons, but I understand there's something called critical mass and doesn't density play a part? Sounds like it might apply. No. According to the post, the sub imploded over the course of 40 milliseconds. In order to produce a nuclear explosion, implosion-type nuclear weapons implode much more quickly than that. And the pressure applied to the core is many orders of magnitude greater than that present in even the most abyssal ocean depths.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
Nobody Google high pressure steam injuries if you have a weak stomach.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Doctor Grape Ape posted:When a sub implodes like that does it end up in a bunch of little pieces or does it stay relatively intact like a crinkled up beer can? Sometimes mostly obliterated it seems (Thresher), sometimes several large chunks. I think it's a function of the implosion depth - Thresher imploded at almost twice the depth Scorpion did. If the San Juan imploded at 1200 feet that seems like an unusually small margin from a test depth of 300m, but maybe they will be able to locate significantly intact wreckage and be able to investigate it. Rent-A-Cop posted:I think the lesson here is that you can totally ignore basic maintenance, or you can operate submarines, but you can't do both. Always true, but sometimes you don't know what maintenance you really ought to have done differently. Bruce Rule also highlighted some battery discussions that are hair-raising and suggests (plausibly, to me) the Scorpion sank due to a battery explosion caused by an excessive discharge rate. Of all the things on a submarine, including the weapons and reactor, the battery is usually the scariest. Rob Rockley fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
simplefish posted:History has probably answered this, and by history I mean probably the Russians, but when a sub implodes that hard, that fast, is there any chance of nuclear warheads going off? I don't know much about nuclear weapons, but I understand there's something called critical mass and doesn't density play a part? Sounds like it might apply. The first thing is that the sub has to have nuclear weapons on board to begin with, so with the San Juan at least that's a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:As far as I understand it you can only really achieve the critical mass explosivly which 'should' be much more force than the outside of the sub collapsing onto the nukes and then collapsing onto the fizzle material.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Oh god that Bruce Rule site led me to the USS Chopper:quote:On 11 February 1969, Chopper was participating in an ASW exercise off the coast of Cuba with Hawkins when her electrical power tripped off-line. Chopper was making 7–9 kn (8.1–10.4 mph; 13–17 km/h) at a depth of 150 ft (46 m) with a slight down angle when she lost power. I would've just walked away from the boat and the Navy after that and resettled in Arizona or anywhere else where there's no water.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Oh god that Bruce Rule site led me to the USS Chopper: I wonder how bad it smells in a submarine after the entire crew has poo poo their pants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
simplefish posted:History has probably answered this, and by history I mean probably the Russians, but when a sub implodes that hard, that fast, is there any chance of nuclear warheads going off? I don't know much about nuclear weapons, but I understand there's something called critical mass and doesn't density play a part? Sounds like it might apply. Worst case you'll cause a fizzle which generates a high amount of radioactivity, but seawater is a good moderator so the damage will be fairly local.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Not to mention the fact that in the case of warheads on a Boomer, they're encased in an RV that's hardened and sturdy enough to survive atmospheric reentry, and the Palomares incident proved even gravity bombs can sink in really deep water with no adverse effects...unless the bomb hits the ground and scatters plutonium all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Assuming a lot of folk here will already have it, but the top notch Cold War RTS World in Conflict is free for the next few days. https://free.ubisoft.com/promotions/world_in_conflict/12 The Alec Baldwin narrated single player campaign is pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Other have answered already, but no. The forces required to set off a nuclear explosion have extremely narrow tolerances, and a pressure hull crumpling around a warhead even at that speed isn't fast enough to cause that level of criticality even if it managed to compress the warhead perfectly. But if you place a marshmallow on the surface of a neutron star you will get a nuclear blammo. So there’s that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Danger - Octopus! posted:Assuming a lot of folk here will already have it, but the top notch Cold War RTS World in Conflict is free for the next few days. Quick note: Ubi's login thing is seriously hosed up. If you are getting login errors it's the service, not your password. The best way to work around this is to make sure you have 3rd party cookies enabled and no ad blockers or anything like that. The tl;dr I got from reading around on some other forums about the issue was apparently Ubi's programmers want deeper hooks into your browser than most other websites do these days. I got around it by using the 100% stock version of Firefox that I keep on hand for government webpages and other retarded sites that don't play well with all the various blockers necessary to enjoy the internet..
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:They don't ask permission. There are varying degrees to which potential employers are aggressive in getting access to your personal data without permission. The degree to which you can open-source this poo poo is terrifying, often they're not even doing anything illegal (and often they can just buy data wholesale from FB). The question is usually more in terms of how much damage you can do in the job you're trying to get. A lot of stuff I use will occasionally pop up with an ad saying "it looks like you're a software engineer! would you like to work here?". They're obviously mining their usage data for patterns indicating someone has a software background. Including Google Search: at one point I searched something and it redirected me to this weird programming challenge saying if I did well I could get an interview at Google. (I have a feeling I could also get an interview without doing their dumb challenge, but whatever.) I suspect that if I were to apply to Google, they would probably take a gander at my data. That's just what they do. At my company the amount of privacy our employees have on their work computers is basically zero. I can imagine it's only worse at a place where collecting data about everybody is their entire business.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
How is Cold Waters? I still play the original RSR on dosbox.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:Not to mention the fact that in the case of warheads on a Boomer, they're encased in an RV that's hardened and sturdy enough to survive atmospheric reentry, and the Palomares incident proved even gravity bombs can sink in really deep water with no adverse effects...unless the bomb hits the ground and scatters plutonium all over the place. I could buy that you *might* get a criticality event, but that should be quickly self-limiting and fall far short of a "big kaboom".
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Hubis posted:I could buy that you *might* get a criticality event, but that should be quickly self-limiting and fall far short of a "big kaboom". From some text book or something I recall the anecdote that a sphere of uranium about the size of a grapefruit needs to be compressed to approximately the diameter of a nickel to create the density needed so that the probability of neutron cascade is high enough to perpetuate the reaction. Otherwise you get a fizzle. Some heat, some light a good bit of radiation but nothing really more than the explosion caused by the detonator, a couple of kg of tnt. So, yeah, the explosion that implodes the fissile material needs to be 'perfect'. You can imagine if one quadrant of the implosion is even a few nano-seconds off the shape wont be right and all the compressed material is just going to shoot out one side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:A lot of stuff I use will occasionally pop up with an ad saying "it looks like you're a software engineer! would you like to work here?". They're obviously mining their usage data for patterns indicating someone has a software background. Including Google Search: at one point I searched something and it redirected me to this weird programming challenge saying if I did well I could get an interview at Google. (I have a feeling I could also get an interview without doing their dumb challenge, but whatever.) I suspect that if I were to apply to Google, they would probably take a gander at my data. That's just what they do. I've seen where websites that need developers will hide crypted messages in the page source that once decrypted will tell you to apply for x job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Oh god that Bruce Rule site led me to the USS Chopper: Holy. gently caress. Balls. So, after some time on wikipedia, Test Depth (the depth they're not supposed to exceed in peacetime) is 400 ft for that class. That's supposedly 2/3 of the "never go deeper than this" depth, so that depth is 600 ft. No idea on the actual crush depth, but the STERN was at 700, with the bow at over 1000. Yeah, definitely Arizona or New Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
boxen posted:Holy. gently caress. Balls. So, after some time on wikipedia, Test Depth (the depth they're not supposed to exceed in peacetime) is 400 ft for that class. That's supposedly 2/3 of the "never go deeper than this" depth, so that depth is 600 ft. No idea on the actual crush depth, but the STERN was at 700, with the bow at over 1000. "Collapse depth' was 900. Also, there's a Balao class (like Chopper) sub still in service, in Taiwan. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
joat mon posted:"Collapse depth' was 900. gently caress me running, that's a mid-WW2 design. That's like finding out the Danes are still running Type IX U-Boats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:gently caress me running, that's a mid-WW2 design. If only. Unfortunately the Danish navy hasn't had subs since 2004. They're not coming back either. We're going in to a new defence agreement sometime soon, and the consensus is that we should probably get some towed arrays and actually fit our seahawks with dipping sonars. Seems like a good idea, hopefully it'll come with the manpower to operate them as well, as currently running 117 person manned frigates seems to be stretching it a bit. (Still better than when they used to be manned by 101!)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
joat mon posted:"Collapse depth' was 900. Still in service and going to get a retrofit so it can keep sailing until 2026. JFC
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Still in service and going to get a retrofit so it can keep sailing until 2026. JFC That one is their second-oldest sub, a Tench class boat. (The class after Balao, but still WWII) e: the ex-Tusk (Bilao Class) was laid down first, in 1943, but the ex-Cutlass (Tench Class) was launched and commissioned earlier than Tusk. joat mon fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:gently caress me running, that's a mid-WW2 design. Worked in Down Periscope!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Something Awful dot com forums poster Scott Manley just recently put out a v good YouTube series about nuke physics, and part 3 goes into a lot of details on the challenges of designing a working implosion-type device: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufRzj89VoH4 You should all watch all three parts of course, it's great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, only tangentially related but it's a bit Cold War 2.0 so whatever: Russia just got banned from the winter Olympics. Any Russian athletes who want to compete in S. Korea will have to be tested clean and compete under the Olympic flag. You know, the same way refugees do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:48 |
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Holy poo poo, only tangentially related but it's a bit Cold War 2.0 so whatever: Russian doping is cold war as gently caress
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:53
|
|