In a First, America Dropped 30,000-Pound Bunker-Busters—But Iran’s Concrete May Be Unbreakable, Scientists Say
Technology
113
Beiträge
71
Kommentatoren
1.5k
Aufrufe
-
Previously, a yield strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) was enough for concrete to be rated as “high strength,” with the best going up to 10,000 psi. The new UHPC can withstand 40,000 psi or more.
The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers. These fibers hold the concrete together and prevent cracks from spreading throughout it, negating the brittleness. “Instead of getting a few large cracks in a concrete panel, you get lots of smaller cracks,” says Barnett. “The fibers give it more fracture energy.”
In a First, America Dropped 30,000-Pound Bunker-Busters—But Iran’s Concrete May Be Unbreakable, Scientists Say
The U.S. made history with the first use of its largest bunker-buster bomb. Experts are waiting to see if Iran’s bunkers survived the unprecedented strikes.
Popular Mechanics (www.popularmechanics.com)
If it's reinforced steel concrete, it would be much harder to bunker bust.
-
I suspect the world would be safer if everyone just let Trump think he won.
That's impossible. "Make America Great Again" is a slogan that he can only abuse as long as there are problems. If he wants to stay in power it's in his best interest to create problems. It's what fascists dictators have been doing since forever. Even if there are no problems they will point towards something and make you think it is a problem, so they can market themselves as the solution. If he would "win" he would lose his power, which is obviously the opposite of what somebody like Trump wants.
-
They mean mixing in steel dust or nylon hair?
Hard to believe this is a recent enough thought.
Its called FiberMesh
-
I doubt it's a recent thought, knowing civil engineers, they're absolute perverts when it comes to concrete.
It has been around in some form since there has been manmade concrete.
Personally, I bought a box of chopped fibers for inclusion in a concrete project some 30 years ago - sold labeled for that specific use.
-
I think that was kinda the idea - war production meant steel was in great demand, and this seemed like a really cheap way to make ships. I wouldn't want to try sailing one round the Caribbean, but they might have been okay in the north sea, for example. They didn't work out though, can't recall why but it's not impossible that melting may have been a factor!
Fuel requirements could get to astounding levels, even with ambient air and water temperatures below 0C any "hot stuff" onboard (engines, lights, radios, people) would have to be offset with some kind of refrigeration system, which requires: more fuel to be burned. I'm sure you can "stay ahead of things" in some environments, but it won't be cheap on the fuel side of things.
-
I never really got why tactical and strategic nukes are so wildly different. Aren't those words more or less synonyms?
In common usage they're equivalent to small and big. In practical terms, all nukes are strategic - use of a nuke has profound global diplomatic repercussions.
-
That's impossible. "Make America Great Again" is a slogan that he can only abuse as long as there are problems. If he wants to stay in power it's in his best interest to create problems. It's what fascists dictators have been doing since forever. Even if there are no problems they will point towards something and make you think it is a problem, so they can market themselves as the solution. If he would "win" he would lose his power, which is obviously the opposite of what somebody like Trump wants.
That is depressingly insightful. See also: the internal war on everyone who isn't a middle-aged white cis het man (and even some of them, too). Just negativity all around.
What really brings me down it's the certainty that even if that is guy was suddenly not there anymore, there is a whole gaggle of like folk ready to continue that same rhetoric. How do you even dig yourselves out of that?
-
That is depressingly insightful. See also: the internal war on everyone who isn't a middle-aged white cis het man (and even some of them, too). Just negativity all around.
What really brings me down it's the certainty that even if that is guy was suddenly not there anymore, there is a whole gaggle of like folk ready to continue that same rhetoric. How do you even dig yourselves out of that?
That is depressingly insightful. See also: the internal war on everyone who isn’t a middle-aged white cis het man (and even some of them, too). Just negativity all around.
Yes. Separating the people is an extremely strong tool in the authoritarian handbook. It is such a strong tool that the things it accomplishes are too much to list here. There are a lot of books on the matter. I think it's even explained in some of the CIA books.
What really brings me down it’s the certainty that even if that is guy was suddenly not there anymore, there is a whole gaggle of like folk ready to continue that same rhetoric. How do you even dig yourselves out of that?
This is not completely correct. People fighting back against their oppressors sends an extremely strong message. And it even goes both way. For example, the attack on the USA Capitol of January 6th gave these Magazis a lot of power because they saw unity in their oppression.
The good thing is that there's always more good people than bad.
-
deleted by creator
"Eventually" might be a long time with radiation.
20 years after the Chernobyl disaster the level of radiation was still high enough to give you a good chance of cancer if you went to live there for a few years.
Radiation levels now | The Chernobyl Gallery
Radiation levels in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and the effect of the nuclear disaster on visitors today.
The Chernobyl Gallery (www.chernobylgallery.com)
I don't know how much radiation these "tactical" weapons release, but if it's comparable to Chernobyl, even if the buildings were not originally damaged, I don't know how fit they would be for living after being abandoned for 30 or 40 years.
-
"Eventually" might be a long time with radiation.
20 years after the Chernobyl disaster the level of radiation was still high enough to give you a good chance of cancer if you went to live there for a few years.
Radiation levels now | The Chernobyl Gallery
Radiation levels in the Chernobyl exclusion zone and the effect of the nuclear disaster on visitors today.
The Chernobyl Gallery (www.chernobylgallery.com)
I don't know how much radiation these "tactical" weapons release, but if it's comparable to Chernobyl, even if the buildings were not originally damaged, I don't know how fit they would be for living after being abandoned for 30 or 40 years.
deleted by creator
