plastic of some sort or another. pvc most likely, maybe lexan. the problem with the Ti bath was it's really narrow pH range. it had to be constantly monitored, and we rarely used it. now we only plate copper, 80/20 permalloy, and CoNiFe.
a couple points from a moderately educated person with an interest in plasmas.
1) mean free path. something everyone forgets to consider is the mean free path. that's basically the mean distance between molecules under pressure (or vaccuum, as the case may be). plasmas have a certain sweet spot, where the mfp is just right, and it takes the least amount of energy possible to create or strike, and maintain that plasma. these conditions are probably not ideal at the leading edge of a wing at mach 1+. granted, these plasmas have been observed, and do exist, and really take no more energy to create that what's needed to fly the plane. however, say you do manage to pluck some of that plasma away and fire it off in some form. how are you going to sustain it? chris thomas has a good idea with firing a laser into the back end of the sonic cone, etc. i'm not gonna repeat it cuz it'd take too long to type. you get the point, creating it is easy, sustaining it is not.
2) why not figger out a way to harness some of the energy from a plasma (through rf inductance or whatever) and use it to power a capacitor bank and make that semi-portable railgun? after all, what's a plasma anyway but a big ol' bundle of free floating radicals with a lot of energy. the problem with railguns is the power supply. we can't exactly load up an f-16 with a big battery bank. the thing would be harder to fly than a b-52. sucking the power off the engine isn't ideal, because that power's needed to power stuff like the flight control systems and whatnot. stuff you don't really want connected to a big bank of capacitors, stuff you don't want subjected to power spikes and drops every time you need to fire off a shot.
3) towards the bottom of the article they talk about shiva star and storing up 10MJ of energy in caps and releasing it instantly. they don't talk about how long it took to charge up those capacitor banks. they also don't talk about the massive copper rails needed to link the caps. take a look at the tabletop railgun projects, like railgun.org. those are small cap banks, storing up a couple thousand joules.
i'm rambling and i've derailed my train of thought. i'm gonna go now and appear like i'm actually contributing something useful to my workday.
it's good that wotc is being bought out by a hasbro, a company that's well established and has been around for a good long while. maybe now they'll pull their heads out of their collective arses and quit making total crap. imho, magic went down the shitter after 5th edition. that whole portal thing? wtf was up with that? and all this silly crap like shadow and flanking, and phasing? phasing was a good way to bring a friendly game of magic to an out and out fist fight. either that, or the players all got so pissed off and/or confused and/or bored that they quit playing. i quit playing just after mirage was released. i couldn't stand the inanity anymore. on top of that, i was running in to snot-nosed kids with decks i would've had to have traded a limb for. portal was the ruination of the collectability of the whole game. hrm.. let's re-release all our oldies and goodies, just like we have in revised, 4th, and 5th... but this time.... we'll give them black borders. great thinking there wotc. anyway, enough random bitching, i'm happy wotc is being sold off. some times good things do happen, though i'm still mourning FASA closing it's doors. hopefully wizkids won't do anything wholly retarded with shadowrun.
btw, i still got a buttload of old magic cards that're taking up space in my apartment. anyone interested, email me. i'll be glad to be rid of them.
yeah, this is all well and cool, but it sounds a lot like Constellation 3D's claim to fame (almost) in their Flourescent Multi-layer Disc, which, as of yet, remains vaporware. i'll believe it's real when i can pop on down to best buy and pick it up, for 50 bucks.
i'll be the voice of reason here. my question is, do you *really need* to project your tv that large? really, what on earth could you possibly do with a 100" diagonal display? besides that, the cost is outrageous. 5K for a good projector and upwards of that 5K *per year* for bulbs!? sorry, but i don't have that kind of money to throw away. aside from that, you've got the lifetime issue. a good tv is going to outlast that projector without question. hell, a good tv should outlast whatever media you're using. VCR's last 5 years with average to heavy use, tops. sure, the good ones last longer. mine's been goin for 7 now. dvd players? face it, you're gonna want a new one in a year or two, just to keep up with the changes and advances. digital cable, satellite, etc. are constantly evolving.
here's a little story. we have joe and bill, neighbors. they're both tech savvy and moderately well to do. jow and bill each decide that their little 27" tvs aren't big enough, so they go out to buy new ones. joe ends up buying a nice big HDTV ready 43" projection tv for about 2 grand. bill, who's makin a little bit more money, decides to splurge and buy a projector and ends up dropping about 5 grand. he makes more money than joe, so rightfully, he should have a bigger tv. what could be bigger than an entire wall in his basement? (weird al's 'frank's 2000" tv' is currently bouncing around in the back of my head) so joe and bill are happy when they get their new toys home. joe offered bill a few beers in exchange for some help lugging his beast of a tv in, and bill had joe come over and watch as he mounted his projector on the ceiling, a one man job. so here are joe and bill, complete with dvd, digital cable or satellite, and whatever else suits their fancy. we check back in on them a year or two later. technology hasn't changed that much. coax is all but extinct, everything is now s-video or component. because they both spent a large amount of cash on these toys, they're both ready for the revolution. the only difference we see is, a noticable drop in bill's bank account. in the past year he's had to replace the bulb in his projector 7 times, even though he really only uses his massive projector when he's showing movies at a party, or watching the superbowl and whatnot. joe's projection tv gets daily use. he watches it all the time, and he's never even had to adjust the tint. so in that two years, bill's spent over 4 grand on projector bulbs alone. we look in on joe and bill again some time down the road. a new revolution in display has come about, and liquid plasma screens are now at about the same price joe paid for his projection tv oh so many years ago, and they last nearly forever. bill, however, can't go out and pick one up, because all the money he could've been saving for that nice flat panel screen with all the bells and whistles has gone into replacing the bulbs in his projector.
you get the point. i'm not advocating projection tvs. personally, i hate 'em. i like to be able to see my screen from anywhere in the room. that's one place a projector has projectino tv beat, but the price of buying it and maintaining it is far from justifiable in my mind. and trust me, the bulbs burn out, a lot. my advice, if you've got money to blow, sink it into a decently sized tv that'll be ready for component video when it comes mainstream, and spend whatever you have left burning holes in your pocket on a good sound system.
read this bit on turbo pumps. they're really cool.
here
we use turbos on some of our vacuum tools, and on our e-beam. the problem with turbos is that the older ones couldn't handle atmospheric pressure. they'd crash. the prinicple of a turbo spinning at that kind of speed is not to suck and push air like a normal fan, but to actually clobber air molecules and physically knock them down further through the fan. with all those tiny little fans moving at 1M rpm, my prediction is that it's all going to crash, spectacularly. imagine little tiny propellers, all flying off the chip assembly with amazing speed. shrapnel comes to mind. my advice, keep the speeds down to a reasonable level, and get some saftey glasses.
on the other hand, i find the noise of computer fans quite soothing. the white noise generated by it calms me down out of a near homicidal rage when my neighbor bitches about me blaring my stereo. not only that, i like the heat being pumped out of my case, which currently resides on my floor. it keeps my feet warm.
when you talk of converting the excess heat into electrical energy, there are a number of ways. these micro-mechanical fans, once started, may be able to maintain sufficient velocity due to convection to drive equally miniture generators. the more practical option that springs to my mind is thermocouples. thermocouples are great, we use 'em all over the lab here. for those who don't know, a thermocouple is made by joining two dissimilar metals, that, when heated, produce electricity. unfortunately, thermocouples don't produce a lot of electricity. it's generally on the order of micro- to milli-volts, but it's because of this small scale that we use them to monitor process temperatures. we also use them because of their ability to take extremes. we use them to measure the temperature on our liquid nitro tanks, and at penn state we used them to monitor our oxidation furnaces, which ran at upwards of 1200 C. recycling this energy might knock a few bucks off your electriciy bill per year, maybe. it's really not worth it to bother figuring out a way to do it. not yet anyway. for now, i'd suggest warming your feet on your case, and your hands on your monitor.
speaking of robert patrick, i'm still waiting for the writers to fit in the line: "have you seen this boy?" in the new x-files episodes. i was hoping for it in the early episodes with Gibson, but i was let down.
This guy seems like the typical Reg Flame of the Week contestant. "blah blah blah anti-microsoft blah blah report the news..." yeah, so microsoft is the evil empire, the borg, the boogie man under your bed, and intel is the great satan of the chip industry. who gives a flying moose.
on a more on topic note, sony's jumping way ahead of itself here, and not looking before it does so. i've played the ps2, and while i'm somewhat impressed with it's graphics and game play, i'm not at all won over by all the hype. the graphics aren't that great, the sound's mediocre at best, and where's that dvd player? i'm barely more than intrigued by what Xbox has to offer. if it's all it's cracked up to be, then it's gonna be a good console, but let's face it. with all the crap they're cramming into there, it might as well be marketed as a pc with tv-out, no keyboard, and very limited program usage. granted, i like the fact that nvidia is doing the graphics chip, nvidia's a great company that's done a lot in a little time. hell, they helped bring about the demise of former graphics giant 3DFx (Down with GLide!). i'm also happy about the fact that seagate will be providing the hdd's for the box. i work for seagate, company loyalty and all that, unfortunately, our drives are so farkin expensive that i end up buying maxtors. either way, they're good drives. (i've got a Cheetah 36 and a Cheetah 73 sittin here on my desk though, 2 grand in paper weights. *sigh*). from reading what i've found on the sound capabilities, i'm somewhat impressed. there are some amazing things that can (supossedly) be done with DirectSound. i'd like to see Dobly 5.1 though, and a digital output as well. might as well put that expensive HTS to work. now that i'm totally off subject, and obviously anti-microsoft in all it's endeavors...
bunch of things here, as well as in the replies. first, copper doesn't actually touch the silicon. copper in direct contact with silicon causes *very bad things*. namely, "copper poisoning". as mentioned, the copper will "tunnel" through the silicon. what good is your copper interconnect if it shorts out the layers? tantalum is used as both an adhesion and a barrier layer to prevent this 'tunneling'. the same thing is done with aluminum.
next issue, crystalographic orientation. silicon sets up crystals the same way carbon does.
another issue, those 'disturbances', or grain boundaries are what gives poly-crystalline silicon the carrier (electron transport) characteristics we like so much for transistor gates. i'm not going to go into too much detail, because that would require digging thru every thing i learned over the past year finishing up an EE degree with a specialization in NMT (nanofabrication manufacturing technology), but grain boundaries for gates are good.
GaAs (Gallium Arsenide) is alive and well in the semi-con industry. head over to Lucent's Reading or Breinigsville (sp) facilities. Indium Phosphide's even got it's niche. these substrates are used most often in the opto-electronics arena, because of their carrier properties. The reason they never took Silicon on is because of their material properties. they're far too brittle for the traditional semi-con industry. compared to GaAs, you can use Si as a hockey puck. i've held GaAs wafers (2") in my hand and watched them crumble to dust. cause of death? thermal expansion due to the heat of my hand. i can see diamond in use in place of poly-si, but you're right about the cost.
the carbon you speak of is most likely Buckminster-Fullerine, a.k.a. Bucky Balls. you wanna make some quick bucky balls? take your average cigarette lighter (not the one from your car, should you have one), light it, and hold it under a spoon (metal, not plastic. plastic works, but it tends to melt much more readily than metal). the 'soot' that accumulates on the back of the spoon is the buckyball form of carbon.
the other possibility are nano-tubes. wonderful little things, those, but they're far too fragile to serve as a load bearing structure such as you speak.
another nit-pick. crays are super computers, granted. however, the term 'cray' does not apply to the cpu's used in such computers. cray built super computers by combining multiple cpus in parallel, like a dual cpu system, only with a lot more. cray is not the only company to do this. sgi is also quite fond of parallel processor power.
my suggestion, next time you wanna try and post something intelligent, a) don't just blurt out the first thing that comes to mind, b) do a lil reading before-hand, and c) spell check.
okay, so a the bomb could've hit at mach 1. see my various posts. that is, of course, with a fudge factor, because i don't feel like figuring out the drag coeff. for a cylinder, but one of the resident physcists says that the number i dug up for drag on a human would work for loose calculations. i also don't feel like doing the calculus to figure out how long it'd take the bomb to hit terminal velocity. if someone else wants to, by all means, please do so.
where k is a proportionality constant that depends on the dimensions of the object (in this case, the bomb) and the properties of the fluid through which it is falling. now, this is going to be incredibly hard to figure out, mostly cuz calculus is not my strong point, so for an accurate figure, i'm gonna track down one of the physicists around here. anyway, terminal velocity is when the force of an object falling is equal to the force of the air resisting it.
copying liberally from a physics book that is quite possibly older than i am, *check copyright date* 1981, okay, so i'm 2 years older than it, we get this:
"In high speed motion through air, the resisting force is approx. proportional to v^2 rather than v; it is called air drag or simply drag.
and they give the equation
vt= sqrt(mg/K)
and they give an example of a falling human with weight of 80kg. they give 0.25 kg/m as a value for K. using that value for our 10000lb bomb we get:
now that i'm sufficinetly braindead and my whiteboard is full of illegible scrawl, i think i'll wander down to the cleanroom, find a nice quiet corner, curl up, and take a nap for a while.
if i recall my high school physics, those few precious moments when i was awake, the terminal velocity of a human, of average height (5'8") and weighing 160lbs worked out to something like 212 mph. that's a far cry from mach, granted, but it's also a far cry from a 1000lb 'streamlined' bomb.
uhm.. have you ever *seen* a B-52? there's a reason they call it a BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fucker). it's big, ugly, and quite fat. with 8 turbojet engines (four pairs, two per side), the thing lumbered along at a stately cruising speed under miliraty power (80% throttle) of something around 400 knots (nautical miles per hour). the thing could never manage mach. even in a pure vertical dive, the strain would be so great on the hulking beast that it would fall apart long before hitting mach, so all you'd end up with would be several thousand pieces of plane falling all over the place, a few might very well hit mach, but i doubt it. i also doubt that the bombs ever came close to mach. without knowing the weight of each, it's hard to guess, but from a service ceiling of around 25000 feet, the possibility is slim at best.
Slashdot Mirror
plastic of some sort or another. pvc most likely, maybe lexan. the problem with the Ti bath was it's really narrow pH range. it had to be constantly monitored, and we rarely used it. now we only plate copper, 80/20 permalloy, and CoNiFe.
Titanium doesn't plate well. The bath is absolutely abyssmal, not to mention a pain in the ass to maintain. That's why we sputter Titanium.
1) mean free path. something everyone forgets to consider is the mean free path. that's basically the mean distance between molecules under pressure (or vaccuum, as the case may be). plasmas have a certain sweet spot, where the mfp is just right, and it takes the least amount of energy possible to create or strike, and maintain that plasma. these conditions are probably not ideal at the leading edge of a wing at mach 1+. granted, these plasmas have been observed, and do exist, and really take no more energy to create that what's needed to fly the plane. however, say you do manage to pluck some of that plasma away and fire it off in some form. how are you going to sustain it? chris thomas has a good idea with firing a laser into the back end of the sonic cone, etc. i'm not gonna repeat it cuz it'd take too long to type. you get the point, creating it is easy, sustaining it is not.
2) why not figger out a way to harness some of the energy from a plasma (through rf inductance or whatever) and use it to power a capacitor bank and make that semi-portable railgun? after all, what's a plasma anyway but a big ol' bundle of free floating radicals with a lot of energy. the problem with railguns is the power supply. we can't exactly load up an f-16 with a big battery bank. the thing would be harder to fly than a b-52. sucking the power off the engine isn't ideal, because that power's needed to power stuff like the flight control systems and whatnot. stuff you don't really want connected to a big bank of capacitors, stuff you don't want subjected to power spikes and drops every time you need to fire off a shot.
3) towards the bottom of the article they talk about shiva star and storing up 10MJ of energy in caps and releasing it instantly. they don't talk about how long it took to charge up those capacitor banks. they also don't talk about the massive copper rails needed to link the caps. take a look at the tabletop railgun projects, like railgun.org. those are small cap banks, storing up a couple thousand joules.
i'm rambling and i've derailed my train of thought. i'm gonna go now and appear like i'm actually contributing something useful to my workday.
click me.
btw, i still got a buttload of old magic cards that're taking up space in my apartment. anyone interested, email me. i'll be glad to be rid of them.
after lookin at the fairly extensive list of burn in push backs, i had to wonder, is this thing ever going to come down?
if you care, Constellation 3D's site is here
here's a little story. we have joe and bill, neighbors. they're both tech savvy and moderately well to do. jow and bill each decide that their little 27" tvs aren't big enough, so they go out to buy new ones. joe ends up buying a nice big HDTV ready 43" projection tv for about 2 grand. bill, who's makin a little bit more money, decides to splurge and buy a projector and ends up dropping about 5 grand. he makes more money than joe, so rightfully, he should have a bigger tv. what could be bigger than an entire wall in his basement? (weird al's 'frank's 2000" tv' is currently bouncing around in the back of my head) so joe and bill are happy when they get their new toys home. joe offered bill a few beers in exchange for some help lugging his beast of a tv in, and bill had joe come over and watch as he mounted his projector on the ceiling, a one man job. so here are joe and bill, complete with dvd, digital cable or satellite, and whatever else suits their fancy. we check back in on them a year or two later. technology hasn't changed that much. coax is all but extinct, everything is now s-video or component. because they both spent a large amount of cash on these toys, they're both ready for the revolution. the only difference we see is, a noticable drop in bill's bank account. in the past year he's had to replace the bulb in his projector 7 times, even though he really only uses his massive projector when he's showing movies at a party, or watching the superbowl and whatnot. joe's projection tv gets daily use. he watches it all the time, and he's never even had to adjust the tint. so in that two years, bill's spent over 4 grand on projector bulbs alone. we look in on joe and bill again some time down the road. a new revolution in display has come about, and liquid plasma screens are now at about the same price joe paid for his projection tv oh so many years ago, and they last nearly forever. bill, however, can't go out and pick one up, because all the money he could've been saving for that nice flat panel screen with all the bells and whistles has gone into replacing the bulbs in his projector.
you get the point. i'm not advocating projection tvs. personally, i hate 'em. i like to be able to see my screen from anywhere in the room. that's one place a projector has projectino tv beat, but the price of buying it and maintaining it is far from justifiable in my mind. and trust me, the bulbs burn out, a lot. my advice, if you've got money to blow, sink it into a decently sized tv that'll be ready for component video when it comes mainstream, and spend whatever you have left burning holes in your pocket on a good sound system.
we use turbos on some of our vacuum tools, and on our e-beam. the problem with turbos is that the older ones couldn't handle atmospheric pressure. they'd crash. the prinicple of a turbo spinning at that kind of speed is not to suck and push air like a normal fan, but to actually clobber air molecules and physically knock them down further through the fan. with all those tiny little fans moving at 1M rpm, my prediction is that it's all going to crash, spectacularly. imagine little tiny propellers, all flying off the chip assembly with amazing speed. shrapnel comes to mind. my advice, keep the speeds down to a reasonable level, and get some saftey glasses.
when you talk of converting the excess heat into electrical energy, there are a number of ways. these micro-mechanical fans, once started, may be able to maintain sufficient velocity due to convection to drive equally miniture generators. the more practical option that springs to my mind is thermocouples. thermocouples are great, we use 'em all over the lab here. for those who don't know, a thermocouple is made by joining two dissimilar metals, that, when heated, produce electricity. unfortunately, thermocouples don't produce a lot of electricity. it's generally on the order of micro- to milli-volts, but it's because of this small scale that we use them to monitor process temperatures. we also use them because of their ability to take extremes. we use them to measure the temperature on our liquid nitro tanks, and at penn state we used them to monitor our oxidation furnaces, which ran at upwards of 1200 C. recycling this energy might knock a few bucks off your electriciy bill per year, maybe. it's really not worth it to bother figuring out a way to do it. not yet anyway. for now, i'd suggest warming your feet on your case, and your hands on your monitor.
speaking of robert patrick, i'm still waiting for the writers to fit in the line: "have you seen this boy?" in the new x-files episodes. i was hoping for it in the early episodes with Gibson, but i was let down.
ah, slip dislocations, interstitials, and what-not.
on a more on topic note, sony's jumping way ahead of itself here, and not looking before it does so. i've played the ps2, and while i'm somewhat impressed with it's graphics and game play, i'm not at all won over by all the hype. the graphics aren't that great, the sound's mediocre at best, and where's that dvd player? i'm barely more than intrigued by what Xbox has to offer. if it's all it's cracked up to be, then it's gonna be a good console, but let's face it. with all the crap they're cramming into there, it might as well be marketed as a pc with tv-out, no keyboard, and very limited program usage. granted, i like the fact that nvidia is doing the graphics chip, nvidia's a great company that's done a lot in a little time. hell, they helped bring about the demise of former graphics giant 3DFx (Down with GLide!). i'm also happy about the fact that seagate will be providing the hdd's for the box. i work for seagate, company loyalty and all that, unfortunately, our drives are so farkin expensive that i end up buying maxtors. either way, they're good drives. (i've got a Cheetah 36 and a Cheetah 73 sittin here on my desk though, 2 grand in paper weights. *sigh*). from reading what i've found on the sound capabilities, i'm somewhat impressed. there are some amazing things that can (supossedly) be done with DirectSound. i'd like to see Dobly 5.1 though, and a digital output as well. might as well put that expensive HTS to work. now that i'm totally off subject, and obviously anti-microsoft in all it's endeavors...
you mean like the coppermine core with aluminum interconnects?
next issue, crystalographic orientation. silicon sets up crystals the same way carbon does.
another issue, those 'disturbances', or grain boundaries are what gives poly-crystalline silicon the carrier (electron transport) characteristics we like so much for transistor gates. i'm not going to go into too much detail, because that would require digging thru every thing i learned over the past year finishing up an EE degree with a specialization in NMT (nanofabrication manufacturing technology), but grain boundaries for gates are good.
and yes, they really do make silicon from sand.
GaAs (Gallium Arsenide) is alive and well in the semi-con industry. head over to Lucent's Reading or Breinigsville (sp) facilities. Indium Phosphide's even got it's niche. these substrates are used most often in the opto-electronics arena, because of their carrier properties. The reason they never took Silicon on is because of their material properties. they're far too brittle for the traditional semi-con industry. compared to GaAs, you can use Si as a hockey puck. i've held GaAs wafers (2") in my hand and watched them crumble to dust. cause of death? thermal expansion due to the heat of my hand. i can see diamond in use in place of poly-si, but you're right about the cost.
let's see... 'cooler', 'wafers', 'scoring', 'lasers', 'sink', 'sandwich', 'allowing', 'coolent', 'super'
that should take care of that.
the carbon you speak of is most likely Buckminster-Fullerine, a.k.a. Bucky Balls. you wanna make some quick bucky balls? take your average cigarette lighter (not the one from your car, should you have one), light it, and hold it under a spoon (metal, not plastic. plastic works, but it tends to melt much more readily than metal). the 'soot' that accumulates on the back of the spoon is the buckyball form of carbon.
the other possibility are nano-tubes. wonderful little things, those, but they're far too fragile to serve as a load bearing structure such as you speak.
another nit-pick. crays are super computers, granted. however, the term 'cray' does not apply to the cpu's used in such computers. cray built super computers by combining multiple cpus in parallel, like a dual cpu system, only with a lot more. cray is not the only company to do this. sgi is also quite fond of parallel processor power.
my suggestion, next time you wanna try and post something intelligent, a) don't just blurt out the first thing that comes to mind, b) do a lil reading before-hand, and c) spell check.
okay, so a the bomb could've hit at mach 1. see my various posts. that is, of course, with a fudge factor, because i don't feel like figuring out the drag coeff. for a cylinder, but one of the resident physcists says that the number i dug up for drag on a human would work for loose calculations. i also don't feel like doing the calculus to figure out how long it'd take the bomb to hit terminal velocity. if someone else wants to, by all means, please do so.
mg/k
where k is a proportionality constant that depends on the dimensions of the object (in this case, the bomb) and the properties of the fluid through which it is falling. now, this is going to be incredibly hard to figure out, mostly cuz calculus is not my strong point, so for an accurate figure, i'm gonna track down one of the physicists around here. anyway, terminal velocity is when the force of an object falling is equal to the force of the air resisting it.
copying liberally from a physics book that is quite possibly older than i am, *check copyright date* 1981, okay, so i'm 2 years older than it, we get this:
"In high speed motion through air, the resisting force is approx. proportional to v^2 rather than v; it is called air drag or simply drag.
and they give the equation
vt= sqrt(mg/K)
and they give an example of a falling human with weight of 80kg. they give 0.25 kg/m as a value for K. using that value for our 10000lb bomb we get:
1lb = 0.4536kg vt = sqrt [(4536kg * 9.8m/s^2)/0.25kg/m] vt = sqrt [(44452.8kg * m/s^2)/ 0.25kg/m] vt = sqrt (177811.2m^2/s^2) vt = 421.68m/s = 0.42168km/s 0.42168km/s * 0.6214 mi/km 8 3600 s/hr = 943.315mph
now that i'm sufficinetly braindead and my whiteboard is full of illegible scrawl, i think i'll wander down to the cleanroom, find a nice quiet corner, curl up, and take a nap for a while.
okay, so i looked around, and the MK39 weighed approx. 10,000lbs.
if i recall my high school physics, those few precious moments when i was awake, the terminal velocity of a human, of average height (5'8") and weighing 160lbs worked out to something like 212 mph. that's a far cry from mach, granted, but it's also a far cry from a 1000lb 'streamlined' bomb.
uhm.. have you ever *seen* a B-52? there's a reason they call it a BUFF (Big Ugly Fat Fucker). it's big, ugly, and quite fat. with 8 turbojet engines (four pairs, two per side), the thing lumbered along at a stately cruising speed under miliraty power (80% throttle) of something around 400 knots (nautical miles per hour). the thing could never manage mach. even in a pure vertical dive, the strain would be so great on the hulking beast that it would fall apart long before hitting mach, so all you'd end up with would be several thousand pieces of plane falling all over the place, a few might very well hit mach, but i doubt it. i also doubt that the bombs ever came close to mach. without knowing the weight of each, it's hard to guess, but from a service ceiling of around 25000 feet, the possibility is slim at best.
you might find that it's a vacant lot or an abandoned building.
I wonder if they remembered to have some math monkey convert from meters to feet. oops.