RE: What's New for Feb 01, 2002

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

>I agree with him that Sandia should

have been more forthcoming about the design of the test.



The test confirmed analyses that only the engines pose significant

penetrating power.  The rest of the plane (including the fuel) crumbles

harmlessly outside, while the engines break loose and try to penetrate.  So

the weight of the plane is virtually irrelevant.  The plane merely serves as

a vehicle to deliver engines at a given speed and leave them at the door, so

to speak.  And the fact that the test wall moved is not a goof--it was

designed to do that, resting on air bearings.  This is standard practice in

measuring impact.  Incidentally, the F-4 hit at 480mph, not 200 as someone

claimed.



But even the most conservative analysis I've seen, which assumes a lot of

concrete crumbles, still concedes that there is no way that much can

penetrate through the massive rebar structure.  But all of this is tentative

until I can see actual engineering analysis.  I'm still looking.  Would

appreciate any input.



I still haven't seen the report.  I can't get a copy.  Ruth Weiner, were you

able to get a copy?  I've ordered NCRP-138, the NCRP report on nuclear

terrorism, but I have no idea what it says.



Ted Rockwell





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/