GrandMasterK Posted February 13, 2006 Author Posted February 13, 2006 So a diamond is impenetrable to a rusty sandwax? or being dragged on the ground at high speeds?
Tetrahedrite Posted February 13, 2006 Posted February 13, 2006 Duct tape duh No, its 2 week old pizza, duh
The Thing Posted February 13, 2006 Posted February 13, 2006 Diamond is not even the hardest substance known to man. Dun dun dun dun... Ultrahard fullerite is harder than diamond. NO it's not a giant chunk of material that you can use to scratch glass. Small particles of it left nanoscale scratches on diamonds. Boron nitride is not harder than diamond. Rather, its hardness is just below that of the diamond, and of course, ultrahard fullerite. Two wikipedia links for you: Ultrahard Fullerite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrahard_fullerite And an EVEN HARDER MATERIAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregated_diamond_nanorods As for the bunker, 5 kilometers of concrete (stop neutron radiation), with another 5 kilometers of steel coating (iunno), then another 5 kilometers of lead (basically more protection) beyond that, and then another 5 kilometers of tungsten (heat resistant), then all coated with Teflon (dunno why), which has another 5 kilometers of tungsten beyond that. The entire bunker should have walls that are about 25 kilometers thick. Haha, the nukes got sp0on3d by t3h ultra 1337 bunker designed by t3h ub3r k3wl 3ng1n33r1ng g3n1us p0on0rz sk1llz0rz0rz0rz! C4mp3d by t3h h4x0r! EDIT: Oh, shoot. Thinnest wall wins.
GrandMasterK Posted February 13, 2006 Author Posted February 13, 2006 Osmium is still the heaviest right?
GrandMasterK Posted February 13, 2006 Author Posted February 13, 2006 So I cant bent a diamond into a ring? I'd have to take a big chunk of it and use a laser to chizzle away?
RyanJ Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Osmium is still the heaviest right? I believe its very dense, should make a good radiation blocker. As for anything indestructable - I'd like to see something survive the gravitatioal forces inside a black hole... seeing as everything gets destroyed there nothing can be indestructable! As for a bunker, dig a deep hole in a mountain - unless they deploy one of those bunker busting nukes... they focus the blast downward and so it is designed to ruin defences. These excluded just make shure you have lots of radiation shielding and also account for that which will be inevitably vaporised and you'll be fine So I cant bent a diamond into a ring? I'd have to take a big chunk of it and use a laser to chizzle away? I'd say not but maybe it could be formed in a ring... I'm not shure it has ever been tried so... bending is out of the question though, it would just shatter. Cheers, Ryan Jones
insane_alien Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 for density it is between osmium and iridium depending on the test either one can come up densest. i think i seen this on wikipedia. RyanJ: with the bunker busting nukes, how the hell do you focus a nuke? i mean its a lot of power to control. the tsar nuke had a higher wattage than the entire sun(although only for a fraction of a fraction of a second). i would assume just get the warhead as close as possible to the target and let the blast do all the hard work.
RyanJ Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 RyanJ: with the bunker busting nukes' date=' how the hell do you focus a nuke? i mean its a lot of power to control. the tsar nuke had a higher wattage than the entire sun(although only for a fraction of a fraction of a second). i would assume just get the warhead as close as possible to the target and let the blast do all the hard work.[/quote'] No idea but I know they developed bunker busters from nukes so... Maybe by shaping the warhead would alter the focus of the blast, I really have no idea. Also, why is it some people think if you wear some sort of mirrored suit you'd survive an atomic blast - it makes no sence because even the material can melt. Cheers, Ryan Jones
insane_alien Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Also, why is it some people think if you wear some sort of mirrored suit you'd survive an atomic blast - it makes no sence because even the material can melt. Reflects IR. although the blast and radiation will probably still get you if your close enough to get burned.
RyanJ Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Reflects IR. although the blast and radiation will probably still get you if your close enough to get burned. True it does but will it reflect enough to stop you and the mirror reflectors from being vapourised? I don't think it will... If you were that close like you said the glamma blast would kill you for shure anyway. Cheers, Ryan Jones
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 No idea but I know they developed bunker busters from nukes so... Maybe by shaping the warhead would alter the focus of the blast, I really have no idea. The idea is that the nuke will be far enough underground that radioactive material will not escape.
RyanJ Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 The idea is that the nuke will be far enough underground that radioactive material will not escape. So it has nothing to do with the blast but rather where the radioactive material will be concentrated afterwards? Interesting! Cheers, Ryan Jones
Dark Photon Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 adamantium can be broken by galactic forces. how about............. a neutron star sword. going to weight alot..
RyanJ Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 adamantium can be broken by galactic forces. how about............. a neutron star sword. going to weight alot.. Well, I'm not shure it counts because its not technically composed of atoms nor is it a mixture of anythig but a neutron soup. Its super compressed nature would make it very hard though and yes very dense and heavy! (A mountain per teaspoon?) Judges - should it be allowed?! Cheers, Ryan Jones
Xyph Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 Building a shelter out of neutron stars would certainly provide adequate protection against an atomic bomb, but seems unlikely to be practical on a planetary surface - not to mention the fact that you'd then have to heavily insulate the interior against the considerably more intense radiation from the stars themselves. Although, in a similar vein, perhaps strange matter would be more practical? There seems to be a lot of (rather vague, and never elabourated upon) speculation that it might be stable outside the conditions that formed it, so, if this is the case, it might be more useful as a building material.
bascule Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 The most indestructable substance? Out of control von Neumann machines, i.e. "grey goo" Anything they come in contact with they just turn into more copies of themselves...
RyanJ Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 Well, if we allow neutron star matter how about something made of singularity matter, if it is even matter... its pretty damn imperveous to everything what ever it is! Cheers, Ryan Jones
YT2095 Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 the best all-rounder is probably Titanium, but it all depends on your means of "Destruction" there are woven polmer cloths or ceramics also, it really DOES depend on the application of the buse given and received by a material in order to determine which is best suited.
rthmjohn Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 from what I've read, it sounds like aerogel is quite indestructable...
insane_alien Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 from what I've read, it sounds like aerogel is quite indestructable... nope its pretty much just as fragile as glass. yes a block the size of a human could support a car but if you chucked a brick at it it would shatter into thousands of tiny pieces
RyanJ Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 nope its pretty much just as fragile as glass. yes a block the size of a human could support a car but if you chucked a brick at it it would shatter into thousands of tiny pieces Though it was a lot like fiber glass? Either way agree they have high strength (hard to compress and such) but are prety easily breakable infact they are hoped to be used for capturing space dust. Cheers, Ryan Jones
insane_alien Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 it already has been used for capturing space dust.
RyanJ Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 it already has been used for capturing space dust. It has... cool I must have been thning of a project they are planning to use it for then Cheers, Ryan Jones
Anjruu Posted March 9, 2006 Posted March 9, 2006 "alright lets try something else. What would I want to make a bunker out of to survive a direct hit from an atomic bomb?" Well, what sort of volume are we talking about here? Because a bajillion miles of silly putty would work well. Sorry, that was stupid, but if you are asking what material would sustain such a hit, restricted to a few metres in thickness, I don't think there is anything. Bunkers are almost always under ground, with thick, thick walls. I am not sure, but I think the US government bunker where the senate, etc, go to if there is any emergency is in a hollowed-out section of some mountain. And I don't think anything could be sent into the sun and come out the other side, still intact. Except for a compound of fairy dust and adimantium.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now