正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

This is a very educative video, it explains dimensions for you. Let me buttress on dimensions explanation. Cm = Centimeters, Mm = Millimeters, M = Meters. 1cm = 10mm =0.01m 10cm = 100mm= 0.10m 60cm = 600mm = 0.6m 100cm = 1000mm = 1m Easy trick : Converting from...

23,545 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

5 条评论

𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬 的头像
𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐬1 年前

Great contribution, thank you.

ajisafeolumuyiwa 的头像
ajisafeolumuyiwa1 年前

You’re welcome.

Hernando Ortiz G 的头像
Hernando Ortiz G1 年前

Suggestion, use no caps on your explanation: cm= centimeters mm= milimiters

ajisafeolumuyiwa 的头像
ajisafeolumuyiwa1 年前

Thanks for your revert.

Alexey Pronin 的头像
Alexey Pronin1 年前

That is for Americans and British, right? )))

相关视频

Jon, Before we get to the math on the charge dimensions you just described, and how they are missing 12+% of the explosives you claim went off, we are going to talk about why you keep changing things up. 24 hours ago, you claimed the 0.5 gram "would be a 10mm x 15mm charge" (see first video)! 12 hours later, you claimed the charge was 7.0 mm x 7.34 mm (shocking, I know). Of course, this was after I pointed out how absurdly too large that would be for 0.5 grams of PETN. The problem you can not change Since you changed the charge size in your response, I figured I would point out the obvious gaslighting to the world. 1st, as previously noted, the optimum standoff distance is 1.5x the diameter of the cone. In the case of the last dimensions you provided, the standoff distance would be about 11 mm, which you factored into your devices overall size. So this is my question for you Jon (and all of your wisdom). With the expected penetration (EP) only 1/2 the diameter of the cone, why is it positioned so far back in the device in your diagram? Someone who built such a sophisticated charge would certainly be able to rearrange the internals to give it a snowballs chance in hell of actually working, right? Even with 3x the distance of the EP away from the end of the device dimension you provided, the theoretical jet would be extremely dissipated and STILL INSIDE THE MIC! By the time it leaves the device and hits the air outside, it would be almost totally, if not completely dissipated. So, why would you place it so far back if you ACTUALLY KNEW how this charge worked? Simply put, the explosive charge properly placed int he device wouldn't need a built in standoff. New Dimensions Are Still 12% Cubic Inches Short For 0.5 grams of PETN In your attempt to correct yourself before being further exposed, you forgot to take into account the empty space of the cone leaving you 12% worth of explosives short for a 0.05 gram charge. That is very significant, especially for a charge this size. See graph paper image with all the math. SUMMARY 1. You changed the charge dimensions in the same day 10mm x 15mm -> 7.34 mm x 7.0 mm 2. Second set of charge dimensions you gave yesterday are 12% shy for 0.5 grams of PETN. 3. At 3x max optimal distance for EP of 3.7 mm, you are still inside the mic and the jet would be worthless by the time it exited. 4. Charge placement and why you decided it needed an internal standoff to begin with. All of these point to one thing. You continue to pull this out your butt. Thank you for your attention on this matter.

Matt Tardio

35,788 次观看 • 12 天前