If that’s what you got from what I’ve been saying, it’s clear that my leaded tap water must be a lot better than whatever you got over there.
1 Like
I didn’t “directly claimed DU wasn’t pyrophoric”, I just didn’t use the buzzword that you’re jerking on.
You’re just mad that I’ve read the article you posted and pointed exactly where you fumbled. It’s pretty evident that this is VERY important to you, that’s why you started your argument with an attack, lol.
2 Likes
They’re such goofs, “tHe US sHouLd dIsArm thIEr NukEs” and “nUkeS arE BAd”
It’s not a buzzword it’s the term for the physical property being described.
mate you said
implying that uranium has no inherent incendiary effect over other metals, when there’s an absolute wealth of research proving that it does, if I were you I’d just drop the ego and admit you were wrong
the shards don’t just “get insanely hot” they actually physically ignite and explode, that is what pyrophoric means and it’s been proven that DU has an increased incendiary effect on penetrating hits over tungsten projectiles
1 Like
That claim goes hand to hand with the source you posted.
Thanks again!
what is vro yapping about
it clearly doesn’t, your post directly claims that it’s only heated metal and there is no incendiary effect when it’s wrong
Either the Abrams gets absolutely vaporized when penetrated because of its DU armor, but the shell has the same effect on its target - or the Abrams DU acts like a spall liner and reduces spall, but doesn’t have this magical nearly explosive effect.
1 Like
it’s not magical it’s a chemical property of metals in the same group as uranium
magnesium and titanium are two more pyrophoric metals
1 Like
Okay, great - so DU armor doesn’t act like a spall liner and penetrating an Abrams with DU should have it be obliterated. Glad we got that sorted.
2 Likes
Partiallly wrong but mostly right, given the context. Still better than claiming absolute phosphority at an inert level, which you did and expected me to buy that.
But you’re kind soul and liked the source to prove your fumble.
1 Like
I never claimed that, however you did claim there was no inherent pyrophoric effect.
I am correct, you are incorrect, I had to teach you.
end of.
I own a “flint” (magnesium) and steel, sparks very bright and almost got burnt by a big one one :P
Magnesium is also used in flares (the point marking ones, not WT flares)
Titanium being pyrophoric is one of the reasons it’s harder to work with than other metals
1 Like
Didnt I already explain it doesn’t ignite when it’s just a solid piece, and only when fragmented a while ago? And provide a very simple example of the concept but you clearly either ignored it or couldn’t understand it.
1 Like
dunning kruger effect is clear
1 Like
Idk what that is (nvm)
Nope you did.
this is incorrect, Uranium is chemically pyrophoric, small particles of uranium will actually spontaneously ignite when contacting air
Not only you are 100% incorrect here, you ignored the content of your own source. Proving that you lack critical thinking, putting you close to a parrot than a person. In that sense, I doubt you will learn anything from this interaction and will keep this bad habit.
End of.
2 Likes
Bro didn’t read anything but the highlighted part of the first screenshot of the iaea source
when Uranium particles are small enough they will spontaneously ignite, yes, that’s what pyrophicity means
heat only assists larger particles to ignite
1 Like