3 ms·
Well there's two of many possible outcomes, which are covered under your "depending on the circumstances", which make your comment universally true, and theref
by jvanderbot 2y ago
Well there's two of many possible outcomes, which are covered under your "depending on the circumstances", which make your comment universally true, and therefore not so informative:
1. We strengthen the pressure vessel enough so that it gives way at higher pressure, making a "stronger bomb"
2. We strengthen the pressure vessel enough so that it doesn't give way, making it not a bomb at all.
It's not at all clear if the duct tape will do 1 or 2 or something else, and this first-order logic / first-impressions design doesn't smell to me like a rigorous solution.
- tyingq 2y agoSo I'm aware that wrapping a pressure vessel in tape has the possibility of making things worse. I thought, for safety reasons, it was worth replying to the comment suggesting to wrap "a ton of" tape around it. At the time I replied there were no other replies. Not trying to win a debate with you. Just trying to share that it could be a bad idea. Rather than just assuming that making the shards less sharp or fragmented was the only possible outcome.
- jvanderbot 2y agoFair! You're replying reasonably and I'm dragging that into my top-level comment about rigor. Impedance mismatch.