Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register
The Offical Matrix Groupchat is online! >>CLICK HERE<<

What would actually happen? (Patreon)

Published:
2018-03-28 20:30:08
Imported:
2021-10

Content

I think I will refilm this one when the weather is a bit nicer. but what do you think of this take? I figured it would be better tho how an experiment rather than just ranting about how flawed the logic was. 

Files

atom bomb deep under water?

Help me make videos by donating here: https://www.patreon.com/CodysLab Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/codydonreeder SubReddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/codyslab/

Comments

Anonymous

Didn't the U.S. military donate atomic bombs underwater that swamped ships floating on the surface? Is that a "minimal" shock wave? Granted, it's not a city-destroying tsunami, but those bombs were no Tsar Bomba either.

Anonymous

Honest feedback. It's interesting and I like the video, but it feels very theoretical rather than based in fact. Maybe add some calculations based on some real world data. Ie: how much energy would a modern bomb release, % conversion to mechanical, how much water would we expect to move, compare to known tsunamis, etc. Give it a scientific foundation. Otherwise, we might all believe that it will just "tear the planet itself apart!" Lol. Ok, maybe not! ;-)

Anonymous
>>11125316

Those were much closer to the surface and at a bigger pressure differential than a trench.

Anonymous

i dont have an atomic bomb YET?!

Garoninja

That moment of silence I almost had for you when your pull cord on the generator pulled off. Glad to see it's easy to rewind. Been there. Broke that

Anonymous

Don't forget the XKCD link in the description. Id like to see which one you're referring too

Mark Trombley

How much money do we need to donate to get you an atomic bomb?

Anonymous

maybe try to detonate a small charge in a bathtub to simulate the effect? It would be cool to visualize the amount of water moved

Anonymous

You're famous for explosions. Do a scale model explosion in your pond and measure the wave. Smaller wave at greater depth?

TheOlsonOutfit

Maybe physics should be required in school.

Anonymous

I'd say this take is fine... yea there is some wind noise in the beginning and at the end but it didnt bother me much...

Anonymous

Cody! Ive got an idea! Use some tubing and put one end under water. Start the engine with a valve open and when ready, close it. Then use you could measure how much a column of water it took to stop the engine on the generator. That would demo the issue pretty well i would think!

Anonymous

^omitt the word *use hahaha. I should proof read

Michael Aichlmayr

It would probably have less effect than these that were detonated in New Mexico and Colorado: <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gasbuggy" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gasbuggy</a>

dancer42

ok so i guess this would be predicated on what this is really about and what the implications would be.from your description this would be analogous to what would happen if in your mining you drilled the hole for a charge to deep and provided to much tamping of the charge.you would get a very muffled bang and no real movement of rock where you wanted it because the was in adequate energy to overcome the structure of the rock, but if there was a fault already loaded to near shifting point your charge might precipitate a major shift. and if you were to set off a nuke you would likely use what was available to maximise the effect so water is relatively incompressible and your nuke is going to move a lot of water and even if most of the energy gut pushes water out and then sucks it back in the local geometry of the sea floor is going to have a lot to do with where the energy goes.

U.S. Water Rockets

Make a water column using clear PVC pipe. Put a cherry bomb or something in the bottom and explode it with different water levels and watch how much the top is displaced. This will show exactly what you mean.

Anonymous

At a depth of 10 km the pressure is about 1000 atm. There is no steam, only supercritical water at high temperatures (hundreds of degrees). An atom bomb is at much higher temperatures than usual (millions of degrees) and would form a plasma. I also suspect that the pressure inside an atom bomb would make 1000 atm insignificant although once outside the bomb the pressure would reduce rapidly attenuating the force as you describe.

Anonymous

I know we were never was suppose to put water on a magnesium fire. We were told the high heat would turn the water to Hydrogen and Oxygen. Was this true? and if it was would this be a factor too?

Anonymous

I was a little confused as to why you were using a generator at first. Maybe explain what you're doing a little more first. Really interesting video though.

Anonymous

You should make a scale model with a firecracker. I would think the scale would be something on the level of a lady finger or a firecracker in a swimming pool. You could easily figure out a proper scale explosion and body of water.

Anonymous
>>11161223

That's a good idea, do one at the depth of a 5 gallon pail and a little blackcat firecracker with a water proof wick, then do it again at half that depth.

Alexander Thomas
>>11152528

Yes, although the scientific reasoning behind this experiment is correct, to get the message across to the general public, I think there should be something actually exploding. (Of course, I wouldn't mind if every video would contain something exploding even if it had nothing to do with the topic…)

Jasper
>>11135334

Presumably they all start out plasmas, then go atomic hydrogen/oxygen, then gasious water. Under the same pressure similar amounts for the same bomb? Of course, water is ~1000 times the density, so ~a tenth of the radius when it is at different stages. Going down stages typically yields more heat. Recombining ions and their electrons and re-forming molecules produces energy again, and I would presume the bubble rises and the pressure lowers. Of course heat transfer during that too.. Making it less efficient. The work is also done at a lower temperature, also suggesting less efficiency.

Anonymous

Cool test! I never knew the load on an engine affected the pressure of the exhaust so much! I agree with what people have said about lighting a small explosion underwater, maybe use a tall pipe to get a significant change in water depth (maybe 1 or 2 orders of magnitude between the shallow and deep trials). I'd think about scaling laws too when scaling up results like that (ex. pressure increases linearly with depth, volume increases with radius cubed, etc.). Another thing I remembered from thermo a while ago is, work = volume displaced * external pressure, so if a gas displaces 1/10 the volume at 10 times the pressure, isn't the same work being done as 1 volume at 1 pressure? Although I also know that rocket engines get less efficient at higher atmospheric pressure (the surface is like the bottom of a huge ocean, of atmosphere instead of water), so there must be something more going on that I don't know about.

Anonymous

I don't have an atomic bomb yet lol

Anonymous

I disliked the fake science video

Anonymous

Any correlation with the Kurzgesagt release? There was only an hour difference 😁