Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- From: Joe Strout <joe@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 14:29:19 -0600
In article <44bbe8a2$0$3671$6c5eefc5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
raven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Dangit, I think you're right -- the stress for a circular cross-section
is proportional to the radius, and inversely proportional to the wall
thickness [1].
Which, since both are linear with length of the object (r/t in the
equations in your cite), a soda can can be scaled up to rama size and do
just fine.
Yes, but (in my original message) I meant that the thickness of a soda
can, NOT scaled, would suffice to contain the pressure of a large
habitat. As you correctly point out, and I realized above, that's not
the case; you have to scale the thickness of the metal along with the
radius.
but that'll teach me to post in the morning before I've had my coffee!
Thanks for setting me straight.
And now how do you feel?
Always happy to have my ignorance reduced.
Best,
- Joe
.
- References:
- pressure containment: not a major issue?
- From: Joe Strout
- Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- From: Mike Combs
- Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- From: Joe Strout
- Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- From: raven
- pressure containment: not a major issue?
- Prev by Date: Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- Next by Date: Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- Previous by thread: Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- Next by thread: Re: pressure containment: not a major issue?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|