Re: Challenger didn'r "explode"
- From: garys@xxxxxxxxxxx (Gary W. Swearingen)
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:59:49 GMT
PP@xxxxxx writes:
Any thoughts?
It can be a matter of definition, which can be different in different
contexts. Show a film of it to a large group of random Americans and
most of them will agree with calling it an explosion, which qualifies
it for one conforming definition in a good dictionary.
IIRC, the most severe definition requires a shockwave, where the
"front" of the expanding gas is supersonic normal to the front (at
least for a decent (?) distance), rather than just very fast, as in
more popular definitions.
(Then there's "detonation", which seemingly doesn't have to be
supersonic, either; just a front of burning thru a burnable or
explodable gas mixture. As opposed to a ball of gas which expands
_after_ heating from burning, I guess.)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Challenger didn'r "explode"
- From: David M. Palmer
- Re: Challenger didn'r "explode"
- From: jonathan
- Re: Challenger didn'r "explode"
- References:
- Challenger didn'r "explode"
- From: PP
- Challenger didn'r "explode"
- Prev by Date: Re: Pluto's OK
- Next by Date: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?
- Previous by thread: Re: Challenger didn'r "explode"
- Next by thread: Re: Challenger didn'r "explode"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|