5 ms·
That doesn't look like any single point gets that much force on it. Wouldn't be surprised if you could safely stand under it.
by jimmaswell 8y ago
That doesn't look like any single point gets that much force on it. Wouldn't be surprised if you could safely stand under it.
- keytarsolo 8y agoGive it a shot and report back to us.
- jimmaswell 8y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY
- holtalanm 8y agoI sincerely hope that was a joke.
- jimmaswell 8y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY
- tomswartz07 8y agoWater has a mass of ~8.3 lbs per gallon. A DC-10 Air Tanker carries 12,000 US gallons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-10_Air_Tanker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-10_Air_Tanker All said, that's 45.4 metric tons. Go ahead, stand under one and let us know how it goes.
- jimmaswell 8y agoHere's somebody standing right under one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hfWatbVPY You people are all being ridiculous today.
- knowaveragejoe 8y agoThis video doesn't prove your point. Not only are they actually not directly under that, but this is spread over a much larger distance than trying to target the cathedral would be. They configure their release to spread over a larger area than that.
- jimmaswell 8y agoIt proves you can effectively firefight with water from a plane without even snapping tree branches, thus there'd be no reason the same pressure couldn't be used on a building.
- knowaveragejoe 8y agoYou're clueless, sorry.
- jimmaswell 8y agoI think I found out the reason everybody is going so crazy over this - a controversial figure from the wrong tribe apparently mentioned flying water tankers. Thus even neutral debate over the subject is wrongthink and has to be extinguished. Why don't you step back for a moment and just admit that given the premises -Firefighting airplanes can effectively spray in a way that doesn't harm trees -Buildings are fine in extended substantial downpours That it must follow -Spraying a building with a plane in such a configuration would not collapse it Otherwise you are the clueless one. This is absurd. At least you downvoters (who are ignoring the site guidelines) are letting me see some aesthetically pleasing upvote configurations again when it goes back up, so I appreciate it.
- tomswartz07 8y agoI have no idea what you're talking about. The facts stand, as have been reiterated in the thread above: - Firefighting airplanes can effectively spray in a way that doesn't harm trees (by releasing the 12,000+ gallons over a very large area) - Buildings are fine in extended substantial downpours (which is significantly less water per second than an air-tanker dump) To your thought's end: - Spraying a building with a plane in such a configuration would not collapse it Yes, it's possible to spray the cathedral with water in such a way that it will not collapse it, but that configuration is that very little water gets on the cathedral, and is instead spread over pretty much the entire island in the Seine. At this point in time, however, it likely doesn't matter. Since most of the building has collapsed already, due to the fire. Like we said it would.
- knowaveragejoe 8y agoHere's a little more visceral example of what they're talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au-vMfRuYMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au-vMfRuYMg
- jimmaswell 8y agoThat's much more volume at once in any one area and much closer to the subject (so less time to dissipate) than any of the actual flying water tanker videos that have been posted.