Comments on: Flipping an Abrams Tank With Your Pinkie

By: dasfalsdfj

dasfalsdfj — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:29:24 +0000

dsafasdfjasldf

By: buy flyff penya

buy flyff penya — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:20:50 +0000

I will buy flyff penya for you, and then you can sell the card then to trade some money to go back.

By: fiesta Gold

fiesta Gold — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:19:02 +0000

Do not have the duty to make that not to be able to play. You also can not make fiesta Gold.

By: 2moons gold

2moons gold — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:17:11 +0000

Each group fights was brothers of one mind with leaders wise instruction, the formidable regiment is not only experiences and 2moons gold for us, is one kind of man’s honor and the China’s youth wisdom crystallization.

By: sex videos

sex videos — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:37:36 +0000

Very exciting, I like it

By: yn

yn — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:08:33 +0000

To freefallingbomb:
First I want figure out the E.F.P is totally different physical penetration mechanism from
hight velocity kinetic projectiles.
I think you should review some basis knowlege about kinect and chemical energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rod_penetrator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge
E.F.P in fact is Shape Charge type weapon, simple as RPG heat round but pernatrtion is much
low than that. And new anti-EFP composite armor has been deveopment and it still use
traditional material such as ceramic,fiber glass which use in chaboham armor furthermore it is
1/3 steel armor weight.
The nano-carbon material is design for counter kinetics energy not to design for Chemical Energy,
but the feature of nano-tech is to change knowned material physical&chemical properties, if they
can make carbon to diamond, they also can make new material to reduce Chemical Energy(more
effectness than ceramic/ruber), and intelligent configuration of composite structure will do both.
“1) good old-fashioned anti– MAT

By: freefallingbomb

freefallingbomb — Sun, 25 May 2008 02:16:22 +0000

Armour ALWAYS has something protective, defensive about it, even when it covers the best soldiers, offensive weapons and means of transport, whole armies of them. But neither this article nor any of the posters here CONFIRM so far that this new type of armour actually fulfills its basic purpose: Has anybody already bothered yet to test the actual resistance of carbon-carbon armour plates (of various thicknesses)
1) against steel bullets fired by infantry weapons (or by criminals)
or even
2) against tungsten penetrators,
and also
3) against heat jets from hollow-charges (shells, missiles, mines, etc.)
before dancing on wildly euphorically around this new mat

By: taylor

taylor — Fri, 23 May 2008 22:46:36 +0000

Egon,
” The only problem with this is that a lot of the basic research is done by foreign nationals in US universities“
How does that bode for the proliferation of a sensitive technology that could be instrumental to our national security?

By: taidan

taidan — Fri, 23 May 2008 22:45:25 +0000

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 23 May 2008 16:44:58 +0000

At this point the hardest problem with carbon nanotubes is fabricating them in long enough strands to be useful outside of lab testing. There are a bunch of people working on it, but it’s a tough problem, and will take at least a few more years to solve. Regarding the recent studies regarding nanotubes and toxicity/cancer in lungs — basically they have found that anything thin/long enough (i.e. a length-thickness ratio > 7) can cause the same sort of damage in lungs as asbestos — and if the normal immune response is unable to deal with it (i.e. it can’t break it down, like it’s unable to break down asbestos) then that could lead to things like lung cancer. At this point they don’t show that this will happen, but it is something that needs to be studied more because we start coating our houses with it.