They've got to have some sort of significant foundation unless they're made out of some just-discovered transuranium element that masses extraordinarily high, like six-gazillion times the mass of uranium.
Or maybe they've some sort of anti-gravity device that repells the truck just before contact.
Look at the diagrams and photographs on their web site and you tell me where you see anything about a foundation.
If they're based on the same sort of concept as kevlar, it might be that a foundation would hamper performance. I'm thinking the principle here is that any impact tends to spread the force across as much of the wall as possible. So it has to be able to yield somewhat while spreading the force as far as possible.
Woah, that is impressive. I also like it very much. It makes me feel better to know they are around military installations, embassies and especially chemical plants.
Yep, you're right. Nothing there about foundations. I'm trying to puzzle out why the barrier doesn't just lift off the ground. I can see how the force can be absorbed in the horizontal, but what's stopping it from being lifted or, for that matter, just pushed down If the pieces are just clipped together?
Well I'm only guessing, so call me out if you think I'm wrong, but, why would it lift more than a bit (maybe not visible to the camera here) unless there was some upward pressure? It would be as likely to go down as up.
I'm pretty sure that the dominant design here is, it's designed in such a way that whenever a particular point experiences an impact, that impact's force is spread across the entire rest of the structure. Sort of like, if I punched you hard in the solar plexus with 500 pounds of pressure in a 2 centimeter impact you'd be devastated, but if you had this little ring around your midriff that gave a little to that punch but effectively distributed 95% of that punch around your entire midriff it would feel like a gentle shove with a slight constriction around your chest.
Not unlike air pressure: 15 pounds per square inch is nothing, like putting little 5 pound weights all around your chest while you lay down. Nothing, right? A little uncomfortable maybe. 150 pounds centered right on your weakest point would be excruciating.
I'm thinking that's the principle here, and that's probably why the foundation wouldn't help much either way.
To use a quotation from a favorite stupid movie of mine:
Take a firecracker in your open palm and set it off. Your hand stings and maybe you get a blister. Clench your fist aound a firecracker and set it off, and your wife is helping you open ketchup bottles for the rest of your life.
I'm thinking it's more like that.
(50 points if you can name the stupid movie I got that analogy from.)
Kevlar vests are the same way, so even if I just poke you hard with a finger, the tip where my finger hits gives in a little but the rest of the vest transfers the force quickly to the surrounding material, so instead of just poking you in a spot it feels more like I've given you a very light shove.
Chain mail works on the same principle if a little more primitively.
As I say, I'm guessing but I'm betting it's the same principle. Smart design and advanced materials can do wonders. I'm betting that a firm foundation might actually just f*ck up the scenario.
I'm just a geek who's blathering. But I'll bet I'm more right than wrong on this. But hell, I'll just keep going since I'm on a wild hare anyway:
One of the weaknesses of kevlar vests turns out to be that while they can absorb enormous impacts--like a .45 automatic slug fired at close range--they are actually vulnerable to certain types of low-velocity attacks. There are bulletproof vests that can absorb a magnum slug at close range, but which you can stick a knife through by hand without much trouble. I'd wonder if a wall like this has a similar vulnerability.
Such a stupid, stupid movie. But so, so much fun. Great concept, lousy execution. At least if you're a science geek like me.
Personally, I like the first 45 minutes and then I lose interest once they get into space and the physicis become completely impossible. But I've had others disagree and tell me the last 45 minutes were the best. So it goes.
In any case, you can redeem your 50 points at Zombo.com, Sean. For whatever you wish. Try not to spend it all at once.
Take a firecracker in your open palm and set it off. Your hand stings and maybe you get a blister. Clench your fist aound a firecracker and set it off, and your wife is helping you open ketchup bottles for the rest of your life.
I'm thinking it's more like that.
(50 points if you can name the stupid movie I got that analogy from.)
It comes from the movie Armageddon. An explanation of how what blowing up an asteroid has to do with a firecracker.
I am a full-fledged science geek, with an actual physics degree. I have one of those annoying noses for technology and science gaffes in movies. I almost fell out of my chair in the Star Trek movie which had Scotty programming a Macintosh computer in full 3D animation and, even better, COLOR! The "Mac" they were using had a big hole drilled in the back with a big video cable going through it.
But in spite of that, Armageddon was fun. I've always found Bruce Willis to be a pretty tolerable action hero. I think it was the first movie I saw Liv Tyler in. I still can't believe that came from Steven Tyler's loins.
Another movie science geeks love to hate that I enjoyed immensely was "Independence Day." Yes I know it is absurd that some super-nerd could write a virus and upload it to an alien computer. Of course that's stupidity of a monumental order (which means typical of Hollywood's concept of comptuers and technology, a concept that is indistinguishable from their concept of magic) but the movie is fun.
On the other hand, the movie I love both as movie fan and science geek is "BladeRunner." THE best sci-fi movie of the past 40 years. (Just to set the ground rules here, "Star Wars" was not science fiction. It was fantasy, pure and simple, complete with magic-wielding wizards who manipulated the fundamental "force" of the universe... I call it "Space Opera" or "Space Fantasy".
Some other true sci-fi movies are:
1. The Day the Earth Stood Still
2. Forbidden Planet (love that movie)
3. Robocop (yep, horrible movie, but true sci-fi)
4. Terminator (not a bad movie, either)
5. Predator (aliens hunting humans on earth? classic sci-fi scenario from the 50s).
Sean: One of my favorite bad sci-fi moments was in the original "Jurassic Park" where the kids were hacking into the park's computer system and the little girl said, "Oh, it's Unix!" Like that's all she had to figure out. LOL.
Yeah, I gagged at that one too. Not to mention the bizarre floating head login screen that "Newman" put on his computer.
I actually didn't care that much for Jurassic Park. It was a major leap in computer animation, but the story was pretty lame, the acting was less than stellar and I don't think I've ever seen a movie with Jeff Goldbloom where I liked him. What Geena Davis saw in him is a mystery to me (except maybe his height).
This page states that there is no foundation at all for the walls. They look to be a box-style construction, and can be filled with sand or dirt as desired.
...I don't think I've ever seen a movie with Jeff Goldbloom where I liked him. What Geena Davis saw in him is a mystery to me (except maybe his height).
Geena now, that's another story...
Are you kidding me? Jeff Goldblum is one of my geek heroes, partly because he won over Geena Davis. I figure that gave hope to geeks everywhere!
I thought Bill Gates was the geek hero who gave hope to geeks everywhere. Goldblum is just an actor with a superiority complex. How much of his technical jargon in Jurassic Park do you think he actually understood? Goldblum is a pseudo-geek, not an actual one.
Well, I did say "one of" my geek heroes. But Mr. Goldblum has played sympathetic geeks in enough roles to win him some geek loyalty, at least here and among friends of mine. He spews technobabble in a very convincing way, and he gets the girl.
I wonder how deep they set the foundation for that wall?
Or maybe they've some sort of anti-gravity device that repells the truck just before contact.
If they're based on the same sort of concept as kevlar, it might be that a foundation would hamper performance. I'm thinking the principle here is that any impact tends to spread the force across as much of the wall as possible. So it has to be able to yield somewhat while spreading the force as far as possible.
I'm pretty sure that the dominant design here is, it's designed in such a way that whenever a particular point experiences an impact, that impact's force is spread across the entire rest of the structure. Sort of like, if I punched you hard in the solar plexus with 500 pounds of pressure in a 2 centimeter impact you'd be devastated, but if you had this little ring around your midriff that gave a little to that punch but effectively distributed 95% of that punch around your entire midriff it would feel like a gentle shove with a slight constriction around your chest.
Not unlike air pressure: 15 pounds per square inch is nothing, like putting little 5 pound weights all around your chest while you lay down. Nothing, right? A little uncomfortable maybe. 150 pounds centered right on your weakest point would be excruciating.
I'm thinking that's the principle here, and that's probably why the foundation wouldn't help much either way.
Take a firecracker in your open palm and set it off. Your hand stings and maybe you get a blister. Clench your fist aound a firecracker and set it off, and your wife is helping you open ketchup bottles for the rest of your life.
I'm thinking it's more like that.
(50 points if you can name the stupid movie I got that analogy from.)
Chain mail works on the same principle if a little more primitively.
As I say, I'm guessing but I'm betting it's the same principle. Smart design and advanced materials can do wonders. I'm betting that a firm foundation might actually just f*ck up the scenario.
I'm just a geek who's blathering. But I'll bet I'm more right than wrong on this. But hell, I'll just keep going since I'm on a wild hare anyway:
One of the weaknesses of kevlar vests turns out to be that while they can absorb enormous impacts--like a .45 automatic slug fired at close range--they are actually vulnerable to certain types of low-velocity attacks. There are bulletproof vests that can absorb a magnum slug at close range, but which you can stick a knife through by hand without much trouble. I'd wonder if a wall like this has a similar vulnerability.
But I'm still just guessing. ;-)
Sorry, I never noticed that. YouTube doesn't do that.
"Armageddon"
And your premise that the design is spreading the force along the full length of the wall is plausible.
Pretty cool.
Such a stupid, stupid movie. But so, so much fun. Great concept, lousy execution. At least if you're a science geek like me.
Personally, I like the first 45 minutes and then I lose interest once they get into space and the physicis become completely impossible. But I've had others disagree and tell me the last 45 minutes were the best. So it goes.
In any case, you can redeem your 50 points at Zombo.com, Sean. For whatever you wish. Try not to spend it all at once.
I'm thinking it's more like that.
(50 points if you can name the stupid movie I got that analogy from.)
It comes from the movie Armageddon. An explanation of how what blowing up an asteroid has to do with a firecracker.
But in spite of that, Armageddon was fun. I've always found Bruce Willis to be a pretty tolerable action hero. I think it was the first movie I saw Liv Tyler in. I still can't believe that came from Steven Tyler's loins.
Another movie science geeks love to hate that I enjoyed immensely was "Independence Day." Yes I know it is absurd that some super-nerd could write a virus and upload it to an alien computer. Of course that's stupidity of a monumental order (which means typical of Hollywood's concept of comptuers and technology, a concept that is indistinguishable from their concept of magic) but the movie is fun.
On the other hand, the movie I love both as movie fan and science geek is "BladeRunner." THE best sci-fi movie of the past 40 years. (Just to set the ground rules here, "Star Wars" was not science fiction. It was fantasy, pure and simple, complete with magic-wielding wizards who manipulated the fundamental "force" of the universe... I call it "Space Opera" or "Space Fantasy".
Some other true sci-fi movies are:
1. The Day the Earth Stood Still
2. Forbidden Planet (love that movie)
3. Robocop (yep, horrible movie, but true sci-fi)
4. Terminator (not a bad movie, either)
5. Predator (aliens hunting humans on earth? classic sci-fi scenario from the 50s).
But BladeRunner tops them all.
I actually didn't care that much for Jurassic Park. It was a major leap in computer animation, but the story was pretty lame, the acting was less than stellar and I don't think I've ever seen a movie with Jeff Goldbloom where I liked him. What Geena Davis saw in him is a mystery to me (except maybe his height).
Geena now, that's another story...
The jet disintegrates.
I like to send that one to those people who wonder where the plane that hit the Pentagon went.
Are you kidding me? Jeff Goldblum is one of my geek heroes, partly because he won over Geena Davis. I figure that gave hope to geeks everywhere!
Well, I did say "one of" my geek heroes. But Mr. Goldblum has played sympathetic geeks in enough roles to win him some geek loyalty, at least here and among friends of mine. He spews technobabble in a very convincing way, and he gets the girl.
Heh.