h a l f b a k e r yNot just a think tank. An entire army of think.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
[place holder while I think about it]
{not to mention my complete lack of photoshop skills}
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I am become NMRM, the horder of idea names. |
|
| |
Shape charge in the bat to redirect the ball? |
|
| |
Now I am become hungry...mmmm... doughnuts... |
|
| |
The idea of the shaped charges and the explosive lenses is to produce symmetric radial compression, not redirection ; the object is to produce a much smaller ball. |
|
| |
It is unlikely, despite the implication of the popular song, that this technique was ever used by or on any high ranking members of the NSDAP. If it had, Herr Heisenberg's research into nuclear fission might have produced more tangible results, as well as squeaky voices and a distinctive style of ambulation. |
|
| |
Comes with scratch and sniff patch of trinitite |
|
| |
I wonder if the charge released by a single molecule exploding is actually lensed or vectored by the atoms or bits left and probably molecules in the local vicinity. But how would the molecules be patterned from that scale up? |
|
| |
<Considers relative difficulty of getting [wjt] to understand refraction of supersonic shock waves in explosive media, compared to teaching a dolphin to play a saxophone/> |
|
| |
<Orders bulk pack of saxophone reeds/> |
|
| |
So, the numbers, or models, will never start with one then? Not enough of a complex pop? |
|
| |
It depends on the level of granularity you're considering, and for the hydrodynamics of radial implosion that has to be pretty high. |
|
| |
Start with the bridge-wire detonator; that ignites a composition which in turn transfers energy to a primary explosive (1.1A) within the detonator body. Billions of molecules are already entrained, and the shock wave hasn't even propagated outside the detonator body as yet. Then that shock wave travels through the outer structure of the detonator (destroying it in the process) and comes into contact with the outer surface of the lens over a small but non-zero area (i.e. not a "point"), causing it to commence detonation. The shock wave then propagates radially (on a macroscopic scale) from that area, but on an atomic level it is already irregular and extremely complex, constantly changing in direction and velocity as it encounters boundaries within the crystalline (but non-homogenous) structure ... |
|
| |
"Don't worry about the fingering yet, just keep your head out of the water and concentrate on pursing your lips ... your lips ... watch, like this ... oh gods ... |
|
| |
<Opens third bottle of vodka this morning/> |
|
| |
Wait, would this be Homer Simpson working on nuclear
physics and such, or Oppenheimer slouched behind the
nuclear powerstation control panel? |
|
| |
The latter would be much the better option; if ever there was a "safe pair of hands" into which the operation of a reactor could be entrusted, Robert Oppenheimer would be one of the safest, along with Enrico Fermi and the other pivotal Manhattan Project physicists. |
|
| |
//constantly changing in direction and velocity as it encounters
boundaries// |
|
| |
So, yes to vectored, if you don't mind random vectors, and no to
lensed, because the nano-engineering isn't there yet. Not that
hard, was it? |
|
| |
Have you checked out that Southern Right on double bass? |
|
| |