Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bridge Demolition Blast Destroys $15,000 camera with Pics
- Thread starter iLikeMyiMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
wow - I love the pic of the camera getting torn to shreds....
as for the demolition - amateurs. You don't just use dynamite, you use shaped charges that implode. If someone had known what they were doing there wouldn't have been any major flying debris. People have been killed by not rigging the demolition correctly. They're really lucky only cameras were destroyed.
D
as for the demolition - amateurs. You don't just use dynamite, you use shaped charges that implode. If someone had known what they were doing there wouldn't have been any major flying debris. People have been killed by not rigging the demolition correctly. They're really lucky only cameras were destroyed.
D
Mr. Anderson said:
Looks like they were trying to get it to implode but didn't get it right. You can trust MODOT to do the job right.
That reminds me. When I first had a digital camera on loan from a friend, it was for a family vacation to Baltimore. My older brother and I walked around the Orioles stadium taking many many pictures. At one point we realized that the 64MB Compact Flash card (expensive for being 5 years ago) was missing. Not only did it have a bunch of pictures of our trip, but I didn't want to have to pay to replace it. We retraced our steps, and as luck would have it, we found the card. Unfortunately, being a ball park, it had already been the target of spilled beer and peanut shells. After cleaning the thing off, we popped it into the camera, and to great relief, it still worked perfectly!
Which is why, when it came to making a camera purchase of my own last year, I only considered cameras that used CF cards. They are some really durable little devices.
Which is why, when it came to making a camera purchase of my own last year, I only considered cameras that used CF cards. They are some really durable little devices.
iLikeMyiMac said:Looks like they were trying to get it to implode but didn't get it right. You can trust MODOT to do the job right.
HAHA! YES! It all makes sense now. MODOT must be run by complete morons. Ever notice that the highway paint in Missouri is less reflective in the rain and at night and in other poor driving conditions than the highway paint used by any other state? Yeah, there's a GREAT way to cut back on budget spending!
I also seem to remember another Department of Transportation trying to blow up a whale....Oregon, wasn't it? Well, that video was more entertaining in the stupidity and rotting whale chunks falling from the sky, crushing cars. But I think the same mentality.
Its what happens when people who don't know what they're doing get to blow things up.
For the record, I've been around and photo'd explosions. I know a little about it so I'm not talking out my arse
Here's one of many
D
Its what happens when people who don't know what they're doing get to blow things up.
For the record, I've been around and photo'd explosions. I know a little about it so I'm not talking out my arse
Here's one of many
D
Attachments
Well I'm only 17 so I've only logged about 2 hours total on non-Missouri highways but I have noticed it and sometimes it gets really hard to see the lanes which can be a little dangerous.stoid said:HAHA! YES! It all makes sense now. MODOT must be run by complete morons. Ever notice that the highway paint in Missouri is less reflective in the rain and at night and in other poor driving conditions than the highway paint used by any other state? Yeah, there's a GREAT way to cut back on budget spending!
wow absolutly amazing picture...
if you stand that close to an explosion you shouldn't be surprised by it
if you stand that close to an explosion you shouldn't be surprised by it
iLikeMyiMac said:What is that and what did they use to blow it up. It looks like the metal barrel is pretty heavy duty.
I've put a couple firecrackers in buckets before but never got a splash that big.
The tank was 1" thick steel, 5' dia, 7' tall filled with water, about 14 Tons total. The explosion's rebound lifted the tank 6" in the air - and that was the rebound
As for what was being shot off, aluminum, water and high voltage - impressive stuff. And that was a small shot, we had one that went 10' over the top of the building.
D
Thats a lot of water.Mr. Anderson said:The tank was 1" thick steel, 5' dia, 7' tall filled with water, about 14 Tons total. The explosion's rebound lifted the tank 6" in the air - and that was the rebound
As for what was being shot off, aluminum, water and high voltage - impressive stuff. And that was a small shot, we had one that went 10' over the top of the building.
D
Why did you do all this? Was it for fun or some sort of drunken chemistry experiment?
iLikeMyiMac said:Thats a lot of water.
Why did you do all this? Was it for fun or some sort of drunken chemistry experiment?
its called electrothermal technology - something from work
D
Mr. Anderson said:This is on my top ten list of internet classics
D
that even beats the call of the lady calling up enterprise to complain there was a turd in the backseat of her car!
I think he'll be able to make enough from that picture to cover the costs
But I've been wondering... Nikon? Canon? Fuji? Kodak? What kind of camera was it?
But I've been wondering... Nikon? Canon? Fuji? Kodak? What kind of camera was it?
That picture is ridiculously cool. That guy was lucky to not get hit by a few of those really nasty-looking chunks in the picture.
100th post! woo!
100th post! woo!
virividox said:
WOW!!!!!!!! That's an awesome picture! I bet SanDisk has bought the guy a new camera.... great publicity for there "indestructible" flash cards!
Counterfit said:I think he'll be able to make enough from that picture to cover the costs
But I've been wondering... Nikon? Canon? Fuji? Kodak? What kind of camera was it?
Just from what I can make out about the lens, it looks like it's a Nikon. That's the 17-35 f2.8 lens (which is HUGE) probably attached to a D100. Maybe a D1. Regardless, that's a camera and lens I wouldn't mind having.
Sucks that it's in camera heaven right now.
heh
Probably, because it's certainly not a Canon L lens (no red ring)Moxiemike said:Just from what I can make out about the lens, it looks like it's a Nikon. That's the 17-35 f2.8 lens (which is HUGE) probably attached to a D100. Maybe a D1. Regardless, that's a camera and lens I wouldn't mind having.
Sucks that it's in camera heaven right now.
heh