• lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    20 hours ago

    they could fit more than twice as many shrapnel, if they used a more tetrahedron form, instead of spheres. but idk if it matters that they withstand less force. also, spheres are probably harder to produce, but maybe its faulty bearing balls, that arise anyway as a waste product.

    • MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      20 hours ago

      If cost is a concern, then just using off-the-shelf bearing balls is almost certainly a good choice. They’re mass-produced in such volume that I doubt you can find cheaper small hardened steel objects with reasonable drag properties

      • The_v@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Those look some of the extremely common 4-5mm hardened steel bearings. All of them in that grenade are likely less than 1 euro. Looks like they are embedded in resin. The resin likely cost as much.

        • fullsquare@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          If you don’t care about precise size, balls can be made cheaply by dropping drops of metal down tower where they are cooled by air as they fall, and then by water after they solidify. Then just sort by size

    • Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      And then their trajectory would not be straight and they would go all over the place, like the ground.

      • fullsquare@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        14 hours ago

        they do that anyway, there’s a lot of ground. balls have lowest drag per mass for randomly oriented tumbling object