(no title)
zaken | 9 years ago
We know the impact a hijacked jumbo jet can have on buildings...now imagine being able to sustain that level of destruction at a rate of 10 times/minute with hardly any power or material consumption.
zaken | 9 years ago
We know the impact a hijacked jumbo jet can have on buildings...now imagine being able to sustain that level of destruction at a rate of 10 times/minute with hardly any power or material consumption.
datadata|9 years ago
Additionally, small really fast projectiles can more easily pack a lot of kinetic energy relative to a larger, more slowly moving projectile because kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared. It is not so easy to pack a lot of momentum in a small really fast projectile because momentum is just directly proportional to velocity.
dredmorbius|9 years ago
It's the jet fuel that melts steel beams.
Kinetic energy = 0.5 * m * v^2
The energy density of kerosene (jet fuel) is about 33 MJ/l
We can compare the impacts of American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767-233ER weighing about 180 tonnes, with about 38,000 l of fuel aboard, with the energy capacity of that fuel, comparing both to barrels of oil equivalent, using GNU Units:
You have: 0.5 * (180 tonnes) * (748 kph)^2 You want: barreloil * 0.63494668 / 1.5749354
And for the fuel (I'm assuming 1kg/l for kerosene, this is slightly high, but the fuel quantity isn't precisely known. Rough accuracy is sufficient.)
You have: 0.907 * 38 tonoil You want: barreloil * 235.81404 / 0.0042406296
The energy of the plane's fuel is roughly 370x that of its kinetic impact.
Someone|9 years ago
On the other hand, as another poster already said, you should compute energy. That goes with velocity squared, so it will be way higher these projectile, compared with a jumbo jet.
Edit: as another poster said, you also should have said miles/hour. That gives you http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=25+pounds%2F2+*+((4500+...), apparently about what a Samsung S3 uses in a year (what am I doing wrong? http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=25+pounds%2F2+*+((4500+... gives me 6.374 kWh. Seems a tiny amount)
matt-attack|9 years ago
bunderbunder|9 years ago
Which isn't to say that it's not useful, but it probably isn't useful for the same applications. Something like this wouldn't be my top choice for large-scale destruction such as knocking down buildings. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in a bunker or tank that has one of these things bouncing around inside, though.
malisper|9 years ago
stavrianos|9 years ago
Bromskloss|9 years ago
lobster_johnson|9 years ago