What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

What if there was a forum for discussing these?

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby rhomboidal » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:53 am UTC

http://what-if.xkcd.com/39

No hypersonic air rifle for Christmas. You'll shoot your eye, brain, and most of your viscera out.

User avatar
bouer
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:26 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby bouer » Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:42 am UTC

I'm surprised frozen rubber would explode that easily, I was thinking much closer to a shrapnel wound than a tomato.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby poxic » Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:43 am UTC

Boiling, not frozen. "It wouldn’t be going fast enough to ionize the air and leave a glowing trail like a meteor, but the surface of the puck would (given enough time) start to melt or char."
All empires fall.
Don't look back.
- The Secret Knots

User avatar
Eshru
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:51 am UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Eshru » Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:27 am UTC

One of the more entertaining what-ifs in a while, although short.

Why didn't he add more pucks? That's the logical progression, right?

boozledorf
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:54 am UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby boozledorf » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:50 am UTC

Why not pucks made of increasingly dense material? (puck made out of plastic? Zinc? Iron? Osmium?)

User avatar
bouer
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:26 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby bouer » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:09 am UTC

:evil:
poxic wrote:Boiling, not frozen. "It wouldn’t be going fast enough to ionize the air and leave a glowing trail like a meteor, but the surface of the puck would (given enough time) start to melt or char."


The surface of the puck would be vaporizing, but the few milliseconds needed to travel to the goalie would not be long enough to thaw the center of the puck.

User avatar
Bernkastel
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:04 am UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Bernkastel » Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:57 am UTC

What if the puck is a hundred times bigger? And how will things change if we vary the distance from where the puck is shot?

jgh
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:04 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby jgh » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:15 am UTC

Whatsa BB gun, and what are BBs? Judging by all the TV adverts, some sort of face cream. Eugh. Though, they always call it bibi cream, even though they spell it BB cream.
The page footer says this forum is run on phpBB. Ah, something to do with web-based bulletin boards. How does that relate to guns?

User avatar
higgs-boson
Posts: 519
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:00 pm UTC
Location: Europe (UTC + 4 newpix)

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby higgs-boson » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:48 am UTC

boozledorf wrote:Why not pucks made of increasingly dense material? (puck made out of plastic? Zinc? Iron? Osmium?)



A puck of original size...

... Iron --> 359 g
... Lead --> 517 g
... Uranium --> 874 g
... Osmium --> 1030 g

With Osmium, to carry roughly the same impulse als a 165g-ready-for-use hockey puck only Mach 1.2 would be needed (instead of Mach 8). Something like 436 m/s ... let's build a proper hockey robot which can handle heavy weight pucks at bullet speed and re-test.
Apostolic Visitator, Holiest of Holy Fun-Havers
You have questions about XKCD: "Time"? There's a whole Wiki dedicated to it!

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Tass » Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:06 am UTC

bouer wrote::evil:
poxic wrote:Boiling, not frozen. "It wouldn’t be going fast enough to ionize the air and leave a glowing trail like a meteor, but the surface of the puck would (given enough time) start to melt or char."


The surface of the puck would be vaporizing, but the few milliseconds needed to travel to the goalie would not be long enough to thaw the center of the puck.


No, but once it hits the goalie at mach eight and disintegrates, it will.

Also: That you could barely stand on a 50 degrees ice slope with skates sounds about right from experience. It is rare that a ski slope gets completely hard smooth ice, but it happens. A ski slope of 50 degrees would be very steep, but hockey skates are probably better than the steel edges on skis to.

Vroomfundel
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:36 am UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Vroomfundel » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:33 pm UTC

Indeed, I was also expecting more details on the distance - it makes a big difference. I was imagining the shot to be taken from a close distance, about the same distance from the goal that players shoot. If it's from the far end of the field it will have more time to soften.

In any case, I also don't imagine the situation to be similar with the cake and tomato setup but it also depends on where exactly it hits and what are the goalies protectors like. If it's kevlar with carbon fibres or whatever maybe some of the pieces will bounce off it but if it hits soft body tissue with none to moderate protection I would totally expect the bits to travel right through it.
lexicum.net - my vocabulary learning platform

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby cellocgw » Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:10 pm UTC

Bernkastel wrote:What if the puck is a hundred times bigger? And how will things change if we vary the distance from where the puck is shot?


Yeah, I was going that way too. A 10-kg puck should produce enough of an "ooooFFF" (all air expelled from poor goalie's lungs) to knock him into the net.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Angelastic » Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:01 pm UTC

No word on the ice melted by this hot puck?
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:11 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:No word on the ice melted by this hot puck?


None during the flight time

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Роберт » Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:44 pm UTC

jgh wrote:Whatsa BB gun
Please renew your Google subscription and try again.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Barstro
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:34 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Barstro » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:24 pm UTC

How would Fox television in the mid 90s have shown such a shot? Would they have a new color?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoxTrax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlRCGR10uBg

mystmouse
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:09 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby mystmouse » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:26 pm UTC

Interesting analysis, but shame it is missing some crucial bits of information.

Having taken several 80mph+ blasts while in net, I can certainly say the force is not trivial but what is more important is the goalie's stance and movement.

Sure, a braced goalie is going to feel it, and its going to deflect away, but more often than not, goalies are not braced because we have to move back there. True fact: Goalie skates are very dull to minimize resistance to allow for better side to side gliding in the crease. More importantly, goalie's are leaning back a little because proper positioning is to be away from the net to cut down the angles, but because that leaves some open space back there, we have to be ready to get back to the pipes in a hurry from a pass or deflection.

Now the problem looks less like hitting a brick wall, and more like precariously balanced tightrope walker. The further from the center of mass, the greater impact the puck has on the goalie's resulting rotational and vectored velocity. Taking a shot to the head can knock a goalie backward; the already leaning goalie, now has an impulse applied sending his feet out from under him, landing him on the ice, where the low-friction ice coupled with the rotational force now linear velocity will scoot him back a few inches. More if he was already moving back to begin with.

I didn't say it was huge getting pushed backwards, but it can and does happen, verified by experience.

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Angelastic » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:42 pm UTC

jgh wrote:what are BBs?

BBs are things which you need 200 000 of to stop a GE Genesis Series I locomotive.

I am not sure if I understand rmsgrey's response, but I'm starting to wonder if pucks tend to fly through the air rather than sliding across the ice as I had always assumed (based on my experience playing field hockey and Shufflepuck Café.)
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

Srt252
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:16 pm UTC
Location: Houston

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Srt252 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:07 pm UTC

Love this what-if. Currently using one of the aforementioned hypervelocity light gas guns to test some data cables for the ISS. And I can verify that a hockey puck would definitely not fit in any of the guns though haha.

airdrik
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby airdrik » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:18 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:
jgh wrote:what are BBs?

BBs are things which you need 200 000 of to stop a GE Genesis Series I locomotive.

I am not sure if I understand rmsgrey's response, but I'm starting to wonder if pucks tend to fly through the air rather than sliding across the ice as I had always assumed (based on my experience playing field hockey and Shufflepuck Café.)

Depends on how they hit the puck. You often see the goalie catching or deflecting the puck with his gloves and face mask because a slap-shot sends the puck flying rather than just scooting across the ice (that's why they have gloves and face masks... well, that and the fact that everyone has weapons that are quite capable of disabling any exposed body parts). Even if the puck is sent scooting across the ice it still spends most of the time in the air (with a thin layer of air between it and the ice), and could hit a lump in the ice that sends it even higher for a few feet.

User avatar
Eshru
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:51 am UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Eshru » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:51 pm UTC

Barstro wrote:How would Fox television in the mid 90s have shown such a shot? Would they have a new color?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoxTrax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlRCGR10uBg

The only hockey games I have sat and watched on television were in the 90s, and for this reason. I found it fascinating.

Edit: I was like 12.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby keithl » Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:39 am UTC

"How hard would a puck have to be shot to be able to knock the goalie himself backwards into the net?"

Mr. Pedant here, for sub-relativistic hockey puck story time. Of course a supersonic puck slows down rapidly. Why? Because it is shedding energy and momentum into the air, which makes the air heat and expand. So, the way the question is asked, the puck is shot, and the goalie is knocked backwards as a result, but the air can do the work, not the puck.

What if we use more power?

Lets assume that 1000 kilograms of explosive, set off at the distance of the puck shooter, is enough to blow the goalie backwards into the net, the net backwards into the wall, and the wall backwards through the spectators and far into the parking lot. The result would be slightly more violent than the average hockey game, and hugely entertaining on television - - - until the blast wave reaches the cameras.

A kiloton of explosive is 1e12 thermal calories or 4.184e12 joules. That's the energy of a 165 gram puck moving at 7100 kilometers per second, a measly 2.4% of the speed of light, much slower than a relativistic baseball. The puck will hit air and vaporize into a burst of heat, superpressurized air, and probably a lot of X rays. Of course, it will take out the shooter, the opposing goalie, both teams, and any spectators with good seats. Those of us in the cheap seats behind wide concrete pillars might survive, at least until the roof caves in.

This shot won't win the game, of course, but it will end it instantaneously. This may be a good ploy for an otherwise lackluster team that is temporarily ahead on the score.

ijuin
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby ijuin » Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:51 am UTC

jgh wrote:Whatsa BB gun, and what are BBs?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BB_gun

A BB gun is a type of air gun that fires individual BB sized shotgun pellets (4.5 mm diameter, made either of lead or steel). They are often used for target practice for when plastic airsoft pellets are too low-density (and thus lose too much speed to air resistance, or fail to penetrate the target). The more powerful BB rifles are adequate for hunting small game, and have the advantage of being quieter than burning-propellant type rifles.

User avatar
BrianB
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:50 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby BrianB » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:18 pm UTC

How hard would a puck have to be shot to be able to knock the goalie himself backwards into the net?


How hard would it be to have the What-If show up on Tuesday morning?

Comics have been late as of lately also.

I'm cancelling my subscription and asking for a refund :?

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Angelastic » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:36 pm UTC

BrianB wrote:Comics have been late as of lately also.

Well, at least it was mentioned in the page header (underneath the logo, not in the header tag) that they'd be late.
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

User avatar
pdg
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:51 pm UTC
Location: Salem, Virginia
Contact:

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby pdg » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:51 pm UTC

jgh wrote:Whatsa BB gun, and what are BBs?


BBs are basketballs, and a BB gun is a cannon which shoots them at great speed.

(Disclaimer: some of the above may be false. Though it would make for quite a spectacle, especially if they were fired at hypersonic speeds.)
We can't go back.
We don't understand everything yet.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby ahammel » Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:54 pm UTC

Barstro wrote:How would Fox television in the mid 90s have shown such a shot? Would they have a new color?
Oh Fox TV! Goodness me!
Have you lost your sight?
Can't you keep track? The puck is black
That's why the ice is white.
And the big red glare you put up there
We've all seen that for years.
For heaven's sake! All it takes
is a couple dozen beers.

[Chorus]
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Angelastic » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:21 am UTC

I finally understand what microchip the Arrogant Worms song Proud to be Canadian is referring to!
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

User avatar
Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Trickster » Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:25 pm UTC

I think Randall completely misread this question.

I believe it is asking if the goalie made a shot, how hard/fast would it need to be to force the goalie backwards (by Newton's Third). Hence the words "himself" and "backwards" in the question.

Am I the only one who sees it this way?

mystmouse
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:09 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby mystmouse » Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:56 pm UTC

Goalie.... making shots. Yeah... no.

The best professional goalies can lob softballs down ice at a pedestrian 30mph or so. Those big sticks plus all that armor make for a very awkward shooting (off hand even).

But for argument's sake: Simple 3rd law..... 5oz hockey puck... 225lbs of goalie. Realize that the shooter is braced on the ice to make the shot, so friction is not negligble, and you realize that the ice simply cannot provide *enough* friction to allow anyone to shoot a puck hard enough to propel themselves backwards with any velocity. As per my explination above, absorbing the strongest of shots barely moves a goalie. The puck has almost no friction to the ice, so there is almost no resistance when the puck is propelled. No feed-back to push off from.

It gets worse.

Look at a slapshot in slow motion. The blade strikes the surface of the ice before hitting the puck, generating a whip effect. Realize the velocity of the puck required to have sufficient force to move a large relative body (from the original explination). The stick exploded and ice vaporized from the friction between the two at the velocity needed to get the puck to the target velocity. Goalie, shooter, fans in the stands... everyone got knocked back when the ice exploded.

User avatar
Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Trickster » Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:52 pm UTC

Ah. Well, I didn't read "making shot" to necessarily mean a goal shot, but I see your point. I haven't played hockey myself (clearly), so all my knowledge comes from Blades of Steel on the NES.

My understanding is that it is a sport which involves almost as much punching as MMA.

quantropy
Posts: 192
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:55 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby quantropy » Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:08 pm UTC

I remember hearing somewhere about a candle being fired through a wooden door, implying that you just need to give something enough speed and it will go through anything. All I can find though is about someone who tried it in 1906 and got covered in candle wax. Has anyone else heard of this? Is it a myth?

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby ahammel » Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:19 pm UTC

mystmouse wrote:Goalie.... making shots. Yeah... no.

The best professional goalies can lob softballs down ice at a pedestrian 30mph or so. Those big sticks plus all that armor make for a very awkward shooting (off hand even).
Despite this, goalies do score occasionally (on empty nets). This has happened only 6 times in the NHL, though.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Trickster » Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:43 pm UTC

quantropy wrote:I remember hearing somewhere about a candle being fired through a wooden door, implying that you just need to give something enough speed and it will go through anything. All I can find though is about someone who tried it in 1906 and got covered in candle wax. Has anyone else heard of this? Is it a myth?

I see nothing on snopes, but it would depend upon the kind of wood, thickness of wood, and size of candle.

I have a candle I could probably throw through a standard door just by myself, and I have little upper-body strength to speak of. It's just a big candle and internal doors these days tend to be rather flimsy. I don't really think the myth is well-defined enough to test.

But as Randall pointed out, if you make something go fast enough, relativistic effects will cause the atoms to pass right through each other, so in principle you can send pretty much anything made of normal baryonic matter through anything else made of normal baryonic matter. I'm not certain once you get to electron-dense materials like white dwarf stuff, but probably then too.

veryslightlygeeky
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:22 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby veryslightlygeeky » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:45 pm UTC

What if... the puck was neutronium?

Lets say:
Neutronium density = 4 x 1017 kg/m3.
Goalie has 2 m in which to stop the puck.
Goalie can exert a force of 100 kgf = 1000N.

So
Puck mass = 4.63 x 1013 kg

and for constant accelleration to/from zero velocity
t = sqrt( 2 s / a)
v = at = sqrt( 2 s a )

Hence
initial velocity v = 9.28 um/s, or 1 mm in 108 s
and
time t = 431 x 103 s = 5 days.

At these velocities we can probably ignore relativistic effects. And spend our time doing something something just very slightly more interesting, like watching 5-day cricket.

And no, I have not worked out a way to keep the neutronium from just dropping to the centre of the earth.

Kit.
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Kit. » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:37 pm UTC

[black hat on]
But what if we target the face?

User avatar
Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: What-If 0039: "Hockey Puck"

Postby Trickster » Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:13 pm UTC

veryslightlygeeky wrote:What if... the puck was neutronium?

&left-bracket dot dot dot &right-bracket

And no, I have not worked out a way to keep the neutronium from just dropping to the centre of the earth.


I don't know why I'm responding to this, but I feel compelled to point out the neutronium would not do that thing.

Neutronium is essentially a very large nucleus held together against the weak force by gravity (and calling it the "weak force" in this case only pisses it off, I'm sure). The most conservative estimate (after doing unfortunate amounts of math) for the number of nucleons (neutrons) in a neutronium hockey puck is: 2.5267(7) × 10^37.

Given that pretty much any nucleus of at least 293 nucleons has a half-life of less than one second, you can probably take a wild guess at what a nucleus with more than 25,267,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nucleons (all of them neutrons!) might do. The explosion and radiation would be significantly larger than an atom bomb, to put it extremely mildly.

I can't say whether it would destroy Earth completely (Earth has around 10^50 atoms) but I'd suspect a large chunk of Earth would be missing at the very least. Most life would die instantly in the quake (or explosion if on that side of Earth, or radiation if on the other side) and the rest would certainly die when the Earth goes molten again. However, not being Randall I have more important stuff to do at the moment than try to calculate this out (fascinating though it be).


Return to “What If?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests