Upload
Login or register

okamiterasu

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:8/23/2013
Last Login:12/03/2016
Location:we
Stats
Comment Ranking:#1886
Highest Content Rank:#3367
Highest Comment Rank:#203
Content Thumbs: 902 total,  1048 ,  146
Comment Thumbs: 39317 total,  41270 ,  1953
Content Level Progress: 70% (7/10)
Level 85 Content: Srs Business → Level 86 Content: Srs Business
Comment Level Progress: 79.3% (793/1000)
Level 329 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 330 Comments: Practically Famous
Subscribers:1
Content Views:71796
Times Content Favorited:17 times
Total Comments Made:3683
FJ Points:29914
are

latest user's comments

#3 - Picture  [+] (7 replies) 08/22/2016 on bethesda in a nutshell +15
User avatar
#9 - sirfapaton (08/23/2016) [-]
I don't get it
User avatar
#11 - skullzer (08/23/2016) [-]
i think it was that the gun's projectile could hit multiple enemies through each other but it was recently patched claiming that this feature was a bug
#10 - lancericus (08/23/2016) [-]
Eh this weapon used to hit a target multiple times if the enemy was going same way the projectile was going, that made the weapon unique and fun. But how we all know Valve loves to fuck shit up, so they told people it was just a bug and removed it...

The problem is that it even said in tool tips how to use it against fleeing enemy. ►Pic
User avatar
#12 - sirfapaton (08/23/2016) [-]
Ah, I see. Haven't played TF2 in ages.
Thanks
#13 - lancericus (08/23/2016) [-]
Yeah im always happy to help a fellow player...

Its actually been a while since this happened
#6 - zers (08/22/2016) [-]
Fuck that still makes me mad. It even said in the tool tips how to use the mechanic but no we need to get rid of it and classify it as a bug in the reports.
User avatar
#14 - volksworgen (08/23/2016) [-]
haha it is funny because anger.
#3 - Glorious nippon paper sharp like katana folded over 10…  [+] (39 replies) 08/22/2016 on Papercut +490
#58 - anon (08/22/2016) [-]
7 folds limit.
User avatar
#126 - larrisawsome (08/23/2016) [-]
wut now m8? MythBusters Folding  Paper Seven plus times
User avatar
#107 - tommythecatt (08/22/2016) [-]
Can you fold paper more than 7 times with hydraulic press Pretty crazy when you try to break that limit using a hydraulic press
#152 - anon (08/23/2016) [-]
Results should be different if a slower press was used. Probably one that goes few millimeters per hour.
User avatar
#147 - ilovemyguns (08/23/2016) [-]
"What the fuck"
I just love the way this guy says it.
#121 - ugoboom (08/23/2016) [-]
>fingers directly underneath the decending press
User avatar
#29 - buckymcbadbait (08/22/2016) [-]
the japanese were literally the last people to invent pattern welding
User avatar
#83 - wlflvr (08/22/2016) [-]
What do you mean by welding? Sorry if I'm out of the loop here, but all the irl sword making I've ever seen has been all about casting and forging, not so much piece welding.
User avatar
#84 - buckymcbadbait (08/22/2016) [-]
Pattern welding is what you call heating a piece of metal, folding it, and hammering it flat again

For more info, see the following:
The Katana
User avatar
#85 - wlflvr (08/22/2016) [-]
Interesting, How, besides the pattern, does Pattern Welding differ from plain forge welding?
User avatar
#105 - citruslord (08/22/2016) [-]
Pattern welding would be a type of forge welding. Although I'd hazard a guess that forge welding would typically refer to joining two completely separate pieces of metal.
User avatar
#108 - wlflvr (08/22/2016) [-]
I mean welding in general means joining two peices of metal. All welding is exclusively the joining of metal. I guess that's the problem I've been having with the terminology here, I do like tig and gas welding, and folding isn't welding, neither is forging.

What Im seeing is Billet Forging (where they forge several pieces of metal into one bar), followed by folding a thousand times, hammering, tempering, and finishing. I suppose billet forging is a type of welding, but its more of a forging technique. It seems like it would more aplty be called "Pattern Forging", but it's not.



User avatar
#110 - citruslord (08/22/2016) [-]
The Serpent in the Sword Forging a Vikingage Sword
Well, the key part you seem to be missing is that, once folded, the metal has to be heated to melting temperature, with a flux, and the newly met faces rejoined to one before the next fold. Via smashing them together. Hence the term welding being used.
You don't just fold it a ton of times and done, you'd have a piece of trash and cold shuts.
And once you get into more complex pieces, such as some Viking style swords I've seen made like this, you have multiple pattern welded pieces being forge welded together to form the base for the sword.
User avatar
#112 - wlflvr (08/22/2016) [-]
Didn't even think of that, thanks!
User avatar
#103 - brisineo (08/22/2016) [-]
Pattern welding is the best way to purify a piece of metal and combine it all into one solid, consistent piece that has the carbon spread out evenly inside it.

The reason why japanese swords were folded so many times was because their sources for iron were very low quality and needed that many folds just to be considered quality steel.
User avatar
#96 - loganmadder (08/22/2016) [-]
folding it makes it stronger, more layers of pounded iron, and boy, did the nips have shitty iron
User avatar
#5 - platinumaltaria (08/22/2016) [-]
Paper folded 1000 times would have a width of 1.7x10^300 millimetres, which is 1.2x10^270 times the diameter of the observable universe.
It wouldn't be cutting through anything, it would be everything.
#36 - niggastolemyname (08/22/2016) [-]
something is fishy about that math
User avatar
#44 - thechosentroll (08/22/2016) [-]
Nah, every time you fold it, the thickness doubles. Let's say you fold it only 10 times, the thickness would go: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024. In just 10 folds, the thickness increases 1000 times, cause it's growing exponentially.

Coincidentally, it's pretty easy to calculate, because doubling something is just 2 to the power of however the fuck times you wanna double it. For example, if you double something 3 times, that's 2^3, which is 8. Like in the example above. Which makes it very easy to just type 2^1000 in a calculator, instead of having to multiply by 2 a thousand times. If you do it, you get a fuckhuge number. Specifically, 1.07e +301, which is basically 1 with 301 zeros after it. Which is a shitton. Multiplied by the thickness of paper, for example, 0.2mm, you get 2.14e +300 milimeters. Which is 2.14e +297 meters. The diameter of the observable universe is 8.8e+ 26 meters. Which means it's 2.4e +270 times smaller than the giant wad of paper. Which is pretty close to what the other guy got, I guess we used a different thickness of paper or some shit.
User avatar
#46 - thechosentroll (08/22/2016) [-]
Also, because someone's probably gonna be confused how much 2.4e+270 is, it's 24 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000. Which in scientific terms is known as a shitton.
#104 - anon (08/22/2016) [-]
can confirm, am scientific
User avatar
#97 - loganmadder (08/22/2016) [-]
whoa
User avatar
#28 - rollmeanddie (08/22/2016) [-]
I'd like to see the math on that.
User avatar
#45 - thechosentroll (08/22/2016) [-]
>>#44,
#39 - anon (08/22/2016) [-]
0.05
0.1 1st fold
0.2 2nd fold
0.4 3rd fold
0.8 4th fold
1.6 5th fold
2.4 6th fold
4.8 7th fold
9.6 8th fold
19.2 9th fold
38.4 10th fold
76.8 11th fold
153.6 12th fold
307.2 13th fold
614.4 14th fold
1228.8 15th fold
2457.6 16th fold
4915.2 17th fold
9830.4 18th fold
19660.8 19th fold
39321.6 20th fold
78643.2 21st fold
157286.4 22nd fold
314572.8 23rd fold
629145.6 24th fold
1258291.2 25th fold

All sizes in mm. By the 25th fold the paper has gone from 0.05mm to 1,258,291.2mm (125.83 meters) in thickness - or 25,165,824 times the thickness. The 26th fold will be 2516582.4mm thick or 50,331,648 times the thickness of the original piece of paper.
User avatar
#153 - rollmeanddie (08/23/2016) [-]
So, still not nearly as big as cloudbutt said.
#38 - anon (08/22/2016) [-]
A standard piece of paper is 0.05mm thick. Each time you fold the paper in half, the thickness doubles. So 1 fold at 0.05mm becomes 0.1mm thick, the next fold makes it 0.2mm, then 0.4mm > 0.8mm and so on and so forth. Exponential growth.
#17 - lolfacejimmy (08/22/2016) [-]
I assume you calculated in half but if you fold it like a accordion it would be approximately 10cm thick that could be spun fairly easy on a basic lathe
#8 - wiisethirty (08/22/2016) [-]
What if you folded it with immense power, making a ridiculously dense piece of paper?
THAT'd be able to cut through anything
User avatar
#98 - osamacare (08/22/2016) [-]
Then it would probably be like wood again.
User avatar
#50 - vajazzle (08/22/2016) [-]
Wouldn't the paper combust under all that pressure though?? I remember watching a video where some guy folded a paper 7 times with a hydraulic press and the paper exploded
User avatar
#129 - larrisawsome (08/23/2016) [-]
that's why size is important. MythBusters Folding  Paper Seven plus times
User avatar
#125 - wraithguard (08/23/2016) [-]
>>#107
User avatar
#127 - vajazzle (08/23/2016) [-]
Thanks, that's the one I was referring to
User avatar
#128 - wraithguard (08/23/2016) [-]
np
User avatar
#109 - wlflvr (08/22/2016) [-]
The paper exploding was probably more in the way that a balloon pops than the way a grenade goes off. It probably had something to do with that.
#59 - anon (08/22/2016) [-]
The problem with the hydraulic pres is that is does it relatively fast. If done slowly, theoretically, the ambient would cool it enough to prevent the explosion.

A hydraulic press that moves few millimeters per hour, now that's something to watch.
User avatar
#43 - zaywoot (08/22/2016) [-]
wouldnt it become a black hole, or would it not be dense enough?

Disclaimer - I don't science
User avatar
#111 - wlflvr (08/22/2016) [-]
It's not a matter of density, it's a matter of mass.

A little background here: So, stars form black holes near the ends of their lives, after they have used all the lighter elements in their cores to fusion and are left with Iron. The iron collects in the core until it passes a certain threshold, where the outward pressure of the interal fusion of the star becomes less than the force of gravity trying to push the star together. If the star is less than 15-20 times the mass of our sun, it will become a white dwarf or, occasionaly, a neutron star. Those above that limit (the Tolman-Oppenheimer Value) will become black holes.

So, yes, in theory, if you had a big enough sheet of paper (with a total mass of a 15-20 times the mass of our sun) and a big enough object to fold it, you could, eventually, create a black hole.

However, after a certain folding point, it would clear Hydrostatic Equilibruim and form into a sphere, and releasing a ton of energy. The core would heat up under the pressure until it started undergoing nuclear fusion.

Then (assuming we're working with a starting sheet of paper that was 20 times the mass of our sun), you would only have to wait some 11-32 million years for the star to burn out all of its lighter elements and eventually, yes, it would become a black hole.


(OF NOTE: I didn't involve the fact that paper is mostly carbon, and would effect the life of the resulting star because of the lack of hydrogen and helium)
#15 - Picture  [+] (3 replies) 08/20/2016 on 50 Shades of People +25
#79 - payseht (08/21/2016) [-]
User avatar
#61 - romirezz (08/21/2016) [-]
I had over 100 minuses from that image one day.
Was sad about people who cant understand racist jokes...
User avatar
#35 - arrowfrogamped (08/21/2016) [-]
I knew I'd find this here.
#8 - Where the **** do you live? Detroit?  [+] (1 reply) 08/19/2016 on Back To School 0
#14 - deutschblut (08/19/2016) [-]
I honestly have no idea what it is like where I live.

I assumed it was like this at all schools in the USA.

Anon said it is not the case...

But even if it were 1% of the schools, it would still be remarkable.