Talk:Blast radius
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiktionary
[edit]Should this be in Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia? It's pretty much just a definition at this point. --HarryHenryGebel 06:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Concrete numbers
[edit]What peak overpressure corresponds to blast radius? Inquiring minds want to know 212.188.108.253 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are some numbers given at Thermobaric weapon. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused here. I came here from a different thermobaric weapon article, Father of all bombs. My question is: the article shows the FOAB blast radius as 300m - does that mean that if I'm standing 301m away when it goes off, everything is fine? Would I have to brush off some dust? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- My exact question aswell. I did some research and what I came to conclude:
- The blast radius is the distance from the core explosion to the outer rim of the area affected with damage of the bombs shockwave. For example the blast radius of the Hiroshima was about 7miles(~11km). At that distance only some glass came out (10%) and tiles were slightly displaced. The explosion radius however was 0.81miles(1.3km). Hope that helped you but I’m still not 100% shure. 95.116.176.244 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused here. I came here from a different thermobaric weapon article, Father of all bombs. My question is: the article shows the FOAB blast radius as 300m - does that mean that if I'm standing 301m away when it goes off, everything is fine? Would I have to brush off some dust? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Use in other domains
[edit]I suggest adding a section about "use in other domains" (what's the general usage for these kind of sections?)
What I have in mind is software security, more precisely cloud computing. Here are some example uses of the term, including major players such as Google, Amazon and Microsoft...
- https://cloud.google.com/security/data-loss-prevention/preventing-data-exfiltration
- https://cloud.google.com/security/encryption/default-encryption
- https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/containers-kubernetes/introducing-workload-identity-better-authentication-for-your-gke-applications
- https://devops.com/improving-resiliency-by-creating-chaos/
- https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/framework/resiliency/chaos-engineering
- https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/fundamentals-core-concepts/
I would suggest the following paragraph, but maybe only one sentence would be enough:
In other domains, the term has been used to designate the impact of a problem on a working system. In cloud computing, the term is used to designate the impact that a security breach of a component could have on an overall running software. It is linked to the concepts of Zero trust security model and Chaos engineering.
(I find that there is no mention of the concept in Zero Trust and Chaos Engineering, which is a shame cos I could have pointed it out)
I'll wait for any reaction, if nothing happens then I'll add it.