IUPAC currently recognises 118 chemical elements. The last twenty have half-lives shorter than Australian prime ministers, and are of equally limited utility to science. However, physicists have predicted that an island of nuclear stability may exist around element 126, containing long-lived isotopes. We propose that this island is actually 400 light-years away.
Ten million aircraft carriers would weigh about 590 trillion kg at the low end, so the truck nuts would have to be 580 billion m^3. I’m not sure even Texans use sets that size.
From the article, that should be 10^17 kg/m^3, not 1017kg/m^3. No, I haven’t checked the conversion to aircraft carriers per trucknut, I’m going to take the original author’s word for it.
That’s what I get for only reading the comment. That changes it to ~5.9e-3 m^3 per set of truck nuts, which is 5.9L per set. Still a little large for most people, I think.
I’m not a truck-nut-ologist, so I don’t have much to go on, and it’s frustratingly difficult finding accurate dimensions for them online. I have found this delightfulawful pair (I had to look at them, so so do you).
The entire structure is approximately 40cm tall, and I measure that as 660 pixels, it look like the main ‘bulk’ of it is in the lower 330 pixels, or 20cm, and about 375 pixels wide, or around 23cm. If we assume that section is half as thick as it is wide, and approximate it as a cuboid (I’ve rounded the numbers, and unrounded the shape), that gives a volume of 5290cm^3, which is disturbingly close to the value you calculated as necessary. Allowing for the top section, I think they might just do the job.
Obviously those numbers are very approximate, but I’ve started at that model enough that it’ll haunt my dreams, and ‘Ten million aircraft carriers’ is an approximate enough description, that I think we can say it’s within reasonable tolerances of being accurate.
Ten million aircraft carriers would weigh about 590 trillion kg at the low end, so the truck nuts would have to be 580 billion m^3. I’m not sure even Texans use sets that size.
From the article, that should be 10^17 kg/m^3, not 1017kg/m^3. No, I haven’t checked the conversion to aircraft carriers per trucknut, I’m going to take the original author’s word for it.
That’s what I get for only reading the comment. That changes it to ~5.9e-3 m^3 per set of truck nuts, which is 5.9L per set. Still a little large for most people, I think.
I’m not a truck-nut-ologist, so I don’t have much to go on, and it’s frustratingly difficult finding accurate dimensions for them online. I have found this
delightfulawful pair (I had to look at them, so so do you).The entire structure is approximately 40cm tall, and I measure that as 660 pixels, it look like the main ‘bulk’ of it is in the lower 330 pixels, or 20cm, and about 375 pixels wide, or around 23cm. If we assume that section is half as thick as it is wide, and approximate it as a cuboid (I’ve rounded the numbers, and unrounded the shape), that gives a volume of 5290cm^3, which is disturbingly close to the value you calculated as necessary. Allowing for the top section, I think they might just do the job.
Obviously those numbers are very approximate, but I’ve started at that model enough that it’ll haunt my dreams, and ‘Ten million aircraft carriers’ is an approximate enough description, that I think we can say it’s within reasonable tolerances of being accurate.
Thanks!
The conversion is intended for Americans, not for people who are good at math.