🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 06 May 2008 23:25:28 -0700, D from BC
<myrealaddress@comic.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 May 2008 21:55:39 -0700, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 3 May 2008 22:04:53 +1000, "David L. Jones"
>><altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I just saw Ironman at the movies - awesome stuff.
>>>Oodles of leading edge technology gadgets in it, some plausible, others not 
>>>so plausible.
>>>Definitely a must-see movie for any electronics and techno gadget buff. 
>>>Gotta love any movie with soldering iron action.
>>>Deserves all the rave reviews it's been getting.
>>>
>>>Dave. 
>>>
>>
>>Yea, but it shows some fool hammering on a piece of hot metal too.  I
>>mean how 18th century.  Dogs, at least show some precision casting
>>instead.
>> 
>
>Maybe he was just hammering out the defects from a crappy casting :P
>
>What bugged me was that the G-forces would probably kill Ironman.
>Hit by shell.
>Hit by an airplane wing.
>Blasted by a missile explosion
>Others...
>
>According to
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_force
>"Any exposure to around 100 g or more, even if momentary, is likely to
> be lethal, although the record is 179 g"
>And
>
>"
>Formula One racing car driver David Purley survived an estimated 179.8
>g in 1977 when he decelerated from 173 km/h (108 mph) to rest over a
>distance of 66 cm (26 inches) after his throttle got stuck wide open
>and he hit a wall"
>
>Sure.. the Ironman suit can protect him on the outside but there's
>nothing protecting his internal organs from all the shock on the
>inside.
>
>
>D from BC
>British Columbia
>Canada

Yep.  Even apparently localized shock propagates very well.  Thus the
killing power of high velocity projectiles.