Re: A Problem To Solve :-)

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s physics 
Sujet : Re: A Problem To Solve :-)
De : jimp (at) *nospam* gonzo.specsol.net (Jim Pennino)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.advocacy sci.physics
Suivi-à : sci.physics
Date : 01. Apr 2024, 22:06:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <2ngrdk-t7k41.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User-Agent : tin/2.6.2-20220130 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.0-101-lowlatency (x86_64))
In sci.physics Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/31/24 19:40, Physfitfreak wrote:
 
1- what would be the coordinates of the point in the sky, that the
missile with the weakest warhead needs to explode at, at time t, to
damage all those 5 fighter jets critically enough?
 
2- within what maximum radius of that explosion, any fighter jet would
get critically damaged at time t?
 
 
 
The slight modification of time t in the statement of the problem to
shut up smart aleck dickheads about latency in arrival of explosion
effect, would be this:
 
1- what would be the coordinates of the point in the sky, that the
missile with the weakest warhead needs to explode at, at time (t
-delta), to damage all those 5 fighter jets critically enough, by the
time t?

Unless all the aircraft were within a radius of a about a hundred
meters and the missile warhead was nuclear with a yield of around 30 kt,
there is no solution.

FYI the largest nuclear warhead on an anti-aircraft missle had a yield
of 28 kt.

2- within what maximum radius of that explosion, any fighter jet would
get critically damaged by the time t?

If the missile had about a 30 kt nuclear warhead, then any aircraft
within about a little over 100 meters of detenation would be destroyed.

If the aircraft was more than a little over 100 meters from detenation,
then any aircraft heading toward the detenation would be destroyed and
aircraft heading away from the detenation would be essentially
undamaged, though the crew would likely die from radiation some time
after finishing their mission.

 
Delta is the time required for damaging effects of the explosion to
reach all five jet fighters by the time t. It is determined by the
missile's own software and is not part of this problem.

The above is utter gibberish.

You have no clue on how any of this works.

FYI the only anti-aircraft missiles ever designed to take out more than
one target at a time had a nuclear warhead.

FYI the shock waves of conventional explosives and nuclear explosives
both travel at roughly MACH 1.

FYI fighters have been capable of exceeding MACH 1 since the 1950's and
thus can outrun an explosive shockwave of any kind if they are going away
from the detenation point at the time of detenation.

FYI the maximum radius of a 30 kt nuclear warhead fire ball is about
100 meters.

FYI missiles with conventional warheads are designed to detenate within
a very close range of the target, i.e. a few feet, or actual contact.

Like I said, you have no clue on how any of this works.



Date Sujet#  Auteur
8 Mar 24 * Re: A Problem To Solve :-)67Physfitfreak
8 Mar 24 +* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)4Chris Ahlstrom
8 Mar 24 i`* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)3Physfitfreak
8 Mar 24 i +- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Physfitfreak
8 Mar 24 i `- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Chris Ahlstrom
10 Mar 24 `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)62Physfitfreak
17 Mar 24  `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)61Physfitfreak
17 Mar 24   `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)60Physfitfreak
18 Mar 24    +* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)9Farley Flud
18 Mar 24    i+* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)7Physfitfreak
18 Mar 24    ii+- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Farley Flud
19 Mar 24    ii`* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)5rbowman
19 Mar 24    ii +* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)3Physfitfreak
19 Mar 24    ii i`* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)2rbowman
19 Mar 24    ii i `- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Physfitfreak
19 Mar 24    ii `- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Chris Ahlstrom
18 Mar 24    i`- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Chris Ahlstrom
23 Mar 24    `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)50Physfitfreak
27 Mar 24     +* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)48Physfitfreak
29 Mar 24     i`* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)47Physfitfreak
29 Mar 24     i +- Re: A Problem To Solve :-) tl;dr1rbowman
29 Mar 24     i +- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Physfitfreak
1 Apr 24     i `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)44Physfitfreak
1 Apr 24     i  +* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)3Jim Pennino
1 Apr 24     i  i`* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)2Physfitfreak
1 Apr 24     i  i `- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Jim Pennino
1 Apr 24     i  +- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Physfitfreak
1 Apr 24     i  +* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)6Farley Flud
1 Apr 24     i  i+- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Jim Pennino
1 Apr 24     i  i`* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)4Physfitfreak
1 Apr 24     i  i +- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Jim Pennino
1 Apr 24     i  i `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)2Physfitfreak
1 Apr 24     i  i  `- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Jim Pennino
1 Apr 24     i  +* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)5Physfitfreak
1 Apr 24     i  i+- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Jim Pennino
2 Apr 24     i  i`* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)3Farley Flud
3 Apr 24     i  i +- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Jim Pennino
3 Apr 24     i  i `- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Physfitfreak
5 Apr 24     i  `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)28Physfitfreak
13 Apr 24     i   `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)27Physfitfreak
24 Apr 24     i    `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)26Physfitfreak
24 Apr 24     i     +* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)19Farley Flud
24 Apr 24     i     i+- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Joel
25 Apr 24     i     i`* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)17Physfitfreak
25 Apr 24     i     i `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)16Physfitfreak
25 Apr 24     i     i  `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)15Farley Flud
25 Apr 24     i     i   +* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)13Physfitfreak
25 Apr 24     i     i   i`* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)12Farley Flud
26 Apr 24     i     i   i `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)11Physfitfreak
26 Apr 24     i     i   i  `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)10Physfitfreak
26 Apr 24     i     i   i   +- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Physfitfreak
26 Apr 24     i     i   i   `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)8Farley Flud
26 Apr 24     i     i   i    +- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Joel
26 Apr 24     i     i   i    +- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Physfitfreak
27 Apr 24     i     i   i    `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)5rbowman
27 Apr 24     i     i   i     +* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)2Farley Flud
27 Apr 24     i     i   i     i`- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Physfitfreak
27 Apr 24     i     i   i     `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)2Chris Ahlstrom
27 Apr 24     i     i   i      `- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1rbowman
26 Apr 24     i     i   `- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1rbowman
26 Apr 24     i     +- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Physfitfreak
28 Apr 24     i     `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)5Physfitfreak
7 May 24     i      `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)4Physfitfreak
13 May 24     i       `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-)3Physfitfreak
17 May 24     i        `* Re: A Problem To Solve :-2Physfitfreak
18 May 24     i         `- Re: A Problem To Solve :-1Physfitfreak
28 Mar 24     `- Re: A Problem To Solve :-)1Arindam Banerjee

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal