or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

Interesting concept that I recall being discussed a year or two back. The issue with modifying angular momentum during a fall remains the need to know the exact height of the phone above the impact surface. That is the single, critical unknown. Without an ultrasonic method - mentioned as a more advanced enhancement - or something equivalent, it's hard to see how this can work.
I've never felt the need for one but, to be fair, the screen protector is surely not intended to be more scratch resistant than the screen, but simply to isolate the screen from objects that might, otherwise, scratch it. No doubt the protector itself gets scratched in the process.
 I wasn't taking exception to what you said - just pointing out that it was not technically correct. You are right that explosives produce quite remarkable, and unintuitive effects, but a result of that is that they are widely and greatly misunderstood. As I said - the explosive  cannot itself (neither the direct detonation shock wave nor the associated air blast) have that kind of effect on materials such as steel. No chemical explosive can, even those substantially more...
 You misunderstand how shaped charges work. It's not the explosive (e.g. the C4) that cuts through the steel in that application. The explosive is used to collapse a thin (typically) copper liner onto the charge mid-plane, that then forms a linear, high-speed, copper jet. It is the copper jet that cuts the steel by a purely hydrodynamic erosive process. By the way - the term "blast" refers to the air shock that is driven by an explosive - not the shock in the explosive...
Let's not get too carried away on the explosives stuff. The detonation pressure of C4 is up around 300 GPa, and so well above the yield strength of steel. It will put a nice dent in a solid steel block, but it will not noticeably melt or vaporize it. It would make a mess of an iPhone though.
In fact that particular usage has periodically waxed and waned for several hundred years. It is on the rise at present, most likely because of the gender sensitivity issues, and, while it has recently been deprecated as improper under the strict rules of grammar, it clearly falls into the common use category. Personally I think it sounds clumsy, but there is no good alternative. It's likely here to stay and you are right - whining about it is pointless.
 You didn't watch it, did you. They actually give a quite nice demonstration of how the ion exchange process produces toughened glass. It's not a coating, by the way.
I have a quadcopter configured for SAR operations, and there is no question that adding IR in addition to visible spectrum imaging would increase its functionality. For SAR use in the US the biggest issue currently is the FAA.
I don't think the units were ever the issue, but rather the indivisibilty of the building blocks and the observation that, with a 0.5 nm atomic spacing, we are approaching the physical limits of circuit miniaturization.
New Posts  All Forums: