Eddie the head said:
Umm well no that's just not how Thermodynamics work. Most of the heat would have gone into the house an not effected fridge anyway. For radiation just look down for why that's irreverent.
I think you mean "irrelevant". Because otherwise, this debate will take on a whole different meaning. Heh.
But anyway, I wasn't talking about the air itself being that hot. If you look at the scene, when Indy climbs out he's staring directly at the mushroom cloud. And, seemingly, in fairly close proximity. The material pulled up into the cloud would be superheated and, as a result, would be giving off a immense amount of thermal radiation.
If nothing else, he at least would have received second-degree burns.
Well 1 is just not true, Akiko Takakura survived the blast in a bank lobby and I think she just died in 2008.
I said most, not all. I am well aware that there were some survivors that lived for years afterward.
For 2, the tests going on at that time where all sub 50 kiloton. "Apple 2" was likely the nuke going off at the point and it was 29 kilotons, fat man was 21. So no they where not "far weaker."
Have you actually looked into this claim or are you taking it straight from the Reel Physics video? Because I actually have. I watched the video when it was first uploaded and was fascinated by it. So much so that I looked into the history of the tests.
Thing is, in the video they operate under data from the Operation Teapot tests in 1955. The film, however, takes place in 1957. During that year, the US military conducted Operation Plumbbob. During this series of test detonations, they detonated bombs with yields upwards of 74 kilo-tons. Far more than the yields of Fat Man and Little Boy.
For 3 Akiko Takakura was 300 meters away. Furthermore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Schiffer
But she was in what was likely a very strong, thick walled building. Given that it was a bank. Thus, it afforded her, and many others likely in the building, some protection from the blast and subsequent fallout.
As I've pointed out above, I said most. Not all.
Also, that wiki page isn't really something I'd recommend trusting. The page itself cites that it's been refuted, as well as having "citation needed" after almost every claim.
That's simple, that wouldn't have happened that way. The fridge would have gone with the shock wave, not be blown ahead. It likely would have tumbled not flew. That part is movie magic, but that would be irreverent to the point that it is possible to survive a nuke in a fridge.
Again, I've seen the video. And, as I said before, I don't agree with
all of their findings. Some I do. Like there being a chance...slim mind you...but a chance that someone
could survive in that type of fridge under those conditions.
Understand, I'm not saying they're "wrong". They certainly "did the math" correctly. And the conclusions drawn from their findings certainly make sense. In point of fact, I agree with their conclusions based on their collected data.
However, they made an incredible number of assumptions. Like one quarter inch of lead in the fridge lining. The drag coefficient of the fridge. The distance from the blast. The yield of the bomb. And even the assumption that a cheap, plywood house would provide similar protection from the blast waves as the bank did for Ms. Takakura.
All that said, my primary contention from the start was that the 'fridge-nuking' was far, far, less survivable and more improbable than the 'raft-drop' stunt. A claim I still stand by.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In the interest of fairness to our fellow posters, I'm willing to continue this conversation via private messages, if you like. I think we've gone far enough off topic to warrant such a move.