3 ms·
The typical catastrophic failure would be a failure of "hull" integrity - i.e. the concrete sphere - at the point of relative vacuum. That could cause an implos
by manarth 1y ago
The typical catastrophic failure would be a failure of "hull" integrity - i.e. the concrete sphere - at the point of relative vacuum. That could cause an implosion and collapse of the sphere.
That implosion would have a localised short-term effect on water currents as water moves to fill the void, which may affect wildlife in the very immediate area, at the point of implosion (e.g. fish swimming directly next to the sphere may be sucked in and knocked into or trapped by the collapsing concrete).
I can't envisage a failure mode which would cause an explosion or cascade to other spheres in the locality.
- rcxdude 1y agoYou talk about it like a gentle process. The proposed unit discussed in the wikipedia article stores about as much energy as 10 tons of TNT, and catastrophic failure could easily be similarly rapid. It's certainly something that would require further analysis (I don't have a good intuition for what the 'blast radius' would be underwater, especially in terms of threatening another unit).
- manarth 1y agoThe energy source in TNT is the chemical potential within the explosive, which is greater than the potential outside, so the reaction is explosive. In this example, the energy source is the pressure of the water column, which is equipotent with the depth, and applying equally to all external faces of the sphere. It'll be dramatic for the sphere, but fairly inconsequential for anything not immediately adjacent.
- disqard 1y agoThe mantis shrimp kills prey using cavitation. I'm not sure the shock wave from such an energetic implosion would be "fairly inconsequential".
- mikewarot 1y agoThe implosion would result in a subsequent cavitation event, which could have significant energy gain.