It would go faster for my bad stomach... My whole fapfolder -> bit. ly/Yv7JSH. alla" If you fart consistently for 6 years and 9 months, enough gas is produce its Not the fast that Kills small Swedish joke
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (109)
[ 109 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#13 - noobiereaper
Reply +73 123456789123345869
(02/15/2013) [-]
Lets say the nuke in question is a quite small warhead W76, with a 100 kton yield and the farts are pure butane. (100 kton TNT = 418.4 TJ)

Butane: about 50 MJ/kg and 2.5 kg /m3 => 125 MJ/m3

Total amount of gas that is equal to the energy from the nuke:
418.4 TJ / 125 MJ = 3350000 m3

Amount of gas (litres) that is needed to be expelled from the bunghole each second (if the post is somewhat right, and I assume 7 years of farting):

3350000000 / (7*365.25*24*3600) =15.15 L/s.

No way anybody is farting anything near 15 litres per second. Longer time is needed or you have used a damn small nuke.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion
www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html
User avatar #66 to #13 - choasmage
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
Was about the Davy Crockett warhead that was .01kt?
#113 to #66 - noobiereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
#69 to #13 - aBlindMoron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
Just one problem with your write-up: a W76 is a ******* thermonuclear warhead delivered via ICBM.

A "small" warhead would have less yield than, say, the 14kt bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The smallest nuclear device, the Davy Crockett warhead, only had a yield of 20 tons (.02 kt). You'd only have to fart .303 L/s to equal a Davy Crockett warhead.
#112 to #69 - noobiereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
User avatar #115 to #112 - aBlindMoron
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
By definition, it's an atomic bomb because it utilizes nuclear fission.

Also, by definition, a W76 is not an atomic bomb. It's a hydrogen bomb.
#117 to #115 - noobiereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
No, no, no, no.... That will never be a bomb, ever. Thats like calling a RPG a handgrenade.

"The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System(s) was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun for firing the M388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War." (In conclusion, it is called a nuclear projectile)

Nowhere does it even say the word "bomb" in the wiki article.

FYI, if you call something an atomic bomb because it utilizes fission the W76 is an atomic bomb, since all the thermonuces use fission and fusion.....

Dont try and define the atomic bomb as something and then label another atomic bomb (by your definition) as a non-atomic bomb ^^

Over and Out
#116 to #115 - noobiereaper
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#80 to #13 - rmoran
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
yfw
yfw
User avatar #47 to #13 - lolzordz
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
references and everything...

A+
User avatar #36 to #13 - oilyniller
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
Why
#43 to #13 - boredatschoolguy
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
you must be fun at parties
#114 to #43 - noobiereaper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
What parties? :O
#27 to #13 - moozmax
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
HEY! Smart guy! We don't don't take your types kindly around here!
#10 - PedoBearsAcomin
Reply +47 123456789123345869
(02/15/2013) [-]
#11 - RidingMyPimpmobile
Reply +34 123456789123345869
(02/15/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#24 to #11 - mikimoose
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
I love Dodger.
I love Dodger.
#110 to #11 - haheho
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
Dodger
Dodger
User avatar #25 to #11 - codfourmotherfkers
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
I would defiantly rape take her out to dinner.
User avatar #29 to #25 - defiantly
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
You probably meant to use "definitely".
User avatar #32 to #29 - codfourmotherfkers
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
Hehehe I have a spelling problem.
User avatar #38 to #32 - puggles
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
or if she told you to quit you could then rape her defiantly.
#39 - gardenmanly
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]






Wow, thanks for your amazing fap folder!
#26 - agitatedscientist
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
NO! No no no. It's time to disprove this ****.

With MATH.

An atomic bomb (not a tactical nuke) uses 4.184 petajoules (4.184 x 10^15) at its lowest grade. Methane gas carries an energy equivalent of 39 megajoules (39 x 10^6) per cubic meter. This means you would need 107,282,051.3 cubic meters of methane gas in order to equal an atomic blast's worth of energy.

You're average fart is 7 x 10^-5 cubic meters (yes, I looked that up). Assuming you fart once every second, you would only have 14,910 cubic meters of methane gas by the end of 6.75 years.

You're off by a factor of nearly 7200.
User avatar #35 to #26 - cakefaceify
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
I was reading this post thinking "I am a science enthusiast and I am agitated by this and must correct someone."
Then I saw your name.
You might be my new idol.
User avatar #40 to #35 - agitatedscientist
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
I am the voice of the people.

Stay agitated my friend.
#41 - hocolol **User deleted account**
+18 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #44 to #41 - twatmissile
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
of course i read it as fun fart
#51 to #41 - gallifreyan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#55 to #41 - jbboys
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#14 - loodee
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(02/15/2013) [-]
op
#102 - haheho
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
#86 - RequieminMortis
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
> Funnyjunk keeps complaining about this guy posting these stupid "facts"   
> Funnyjunk keeps thumbing said stupid "facts" to front page
> Funnyjunk keeps complaining about this guy posting these stupid "facts"
> Funnyjunk keeps thumbing said stupid "facts" to front page
User avatar #88 to #86 - pocoyothegreat
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(02/16/2013) [-]
Doubt it's FJ thing... I smell a conspiracy, either proxy or in cahoots with the fat.
#111 to #86 - lieutenantshitface **User deleted account**
+1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]