Arthropoda Ingens wrote:I question the probability of the amount of energy needed to significantly damage the skin also being sufficient to 1. heat up a significant amount of steel 2. being omnidirectionally re-radiated/ conducted and 3. still being enough to also do significant damage to the skin.Auman wrote:Stunning... However, the fire will eat the oxygen and kill you. It will also heat up the metal and burn you, blistering your face and eventually peeling the flesh off in sheets. Ultimately, while punching a steel hat will hurt your hand, setting it on fire will kill the user. You'd also notice that setting human flesh on fire is difficult at first, so for the purposes of the experiment a propellant would be used.Curiously, both involve kinetic energy. Are you saying that several different types of shields are needed to deal with different types of kinetic projectiles?Now... Let's use another experiment. A level III protective vest will protect you from 7.62x51mm projectiles, but it won't protect you from a knife. A stab vest will protect you from a knife, but a bullet like I mentioned would go straight through it.hahaha no.jpg & Morbo.jpgA steel plate will stop slashes and stabs from a sword, but a laser would blast it to pieces and bullets would turn it into Swiss cheese.
The kinetic energy of a sword slash or stab is in the range of < 100 to < 200 joules, tops. Now, if you can show me a 6.25 mm Browning penetrating full plate - just the equivalent thickness of steel, really, doesn't have to be actual armour -, I'll concede. Otherwise... lol.
And I want to see the, oh, lets be optimistic and make it equivalent to an assault rifle bullet in terms of energy - the 2 kW laser that blasts a few kilograms worth of steel plate to pieces. Really, I do.
I'd argue your points, but they're not based in reality. If a sword was more than capable of defeating steel plate, then why was the mace invented? Wait, it's because the typical longsword of the time was not capable of defeating steel plate armor. Fire also does create the effects I am talking about... Otherwise molotov cocktails wouldn't exist.Which unfortunately, doesn't have anything to do with the argument I made, which is that it's the energy that matters - NBC gear is specifically meant to deal with threats that don't do hard- but soft damage - thus being a staggeringly invalid example on account of energy playing a negligible role -, and low temperatures aren't a problem of energy received, but of energy lost, missing the point harder than a gas-huffing part-time petrol-station attendant.NBC gear will protect you from various exotic threats, but won't help you if you're trying to put out an oil well fire... That's why you wear them fancy shiny heat suits. A t-shirt and shorts will protect you from overheating in summer, but if you wore it in Antarctica during the winter, you'd die in seconds.
I'd argue your points, but they're not based in reality. If a sword was more than capable of defeating steel plate, then why was the mace invented? Wait, it's because the typical longsword of the time was not capable of defeating steel plate armor. Fire also does create the effects I am talking about... Otherwise molotov cocktails wouldn't exist.
Anyway, back to the original point... You're wrong. You're very wrong, actually. And when you realize how wrong you are on the most basic points of reason, you should immediately drop out of university.