Caveats: MOAB is not straight TNT. Does not take into account any height of burst effects. Rounding of values involved.
Blast pressures ranges for surface burst of 11 tons of TNT, with some key ranges marked. Just for more context on MOAB. Log scale on left.pic.twitter.com/O7TJAgFPxY
-
-
-
Additional caveat: does not take into account terrain, reflection, etc. Don't take as gospel. Orders of magnitude.
-
Someone actually told me yesterday, "but it's bigger than the hiroshima bomb." They meant size wize...no account what's inside.pic.twitter.com/JXqvnODwaU
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Data uses Sadovsky formulae for blast waves. Shout-out to my student Austin Cawley-Edwards for coding the equations for me last summer.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Apologies to people who hate psi as a unit. Sorry. If you care about such things, I trust you can do the conversation to kPa or atm.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Most of the media published MOAB power as 11 Tons. But as it uses much advance explosives than TNT, should its yield be higher?
-
It uses H-6, which Wikipedia says is 1.35X more powerful than TNT. So one could use 15 tons of TNT as a base number, I guess.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This article says houses three miles away were destroyed... Their sources lying?https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/world/asia/mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan-us-moab.html …
-
Blast waves can be weird in real life (e.g. if they are reflecting off of something), but I'm skeptical, yes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.