MovieChat Forums > Knight Rider (1982) Discussion > KITT's indestructibility

KITT's indestructibility

posted 7 years ago by dcornibe
9 replies | jump to latest

How did they film the scenes that made KITT seem indestructible? I guess they could have used painted soft-material walls to crash through, rubber hammers, etc., but in some scenes it loks really convincing like the car is really making contact with hard objects or gettng crushed, etc., and not getting a scratch. Wonder if the producers actually have some documentary or featurette about this?

On that note, I also wonder if scientists could actually develop a real-life "molecular bond shell" that could be coated on any object to make the atoms or molecules bind together so closely that they would never separate or lose shape? I'm not a scientist, but I'm thinking it must be possible. After all, diamond, for example, is the hardest known substance on earth simply b/c the atoms are the closest together. I don't see why that can'g be replicated in a lab somewhere. But I wonder what would happen if you did have every car on the road indestructible, like "the unstoppable force meeting with the immovable object" ("Trust Doesn't Rust") - a nuclear explosion??

[–] MikeHunt1075 7 years ago

Foam bricks with powder on them is one way to make a wall. It's all trickery of the special effects and props departments.

[–] MikeHunt1075 7 years ago

making an industructable vehicle most likely isn't possible, as the military would use it for tanks and what not.... But even yet, on a regular car, it would make it weigh a tonne or more.

[–] avortac4 (3417) 3 years ago

"making an industructable vehicle most likely isn't possible, as the military would use it for tanks and what not.... But even yet, on a regular car, it would make it weigh a tonne or more."

Please forgive me, but it's kind of hard for me to trust the expertise about 'indestructability', coming from somenone that doesn't know how to:

- Capitalize the first letter in a sentence
- Type 'indestructible' correctly
- Use consistent logic
- Type the word 'ton' correctly

Your sentences are an incoherent mess anyway, and that logic leap astounds me.

First of all, how does 'military using something for tanks' make the EXISTENCE of said thing 'not possible'?

Secondly, how do you know what's possible and what isn't?

Thirdly, what do you refer by the word 'it'? A molecular coating? Indestructible material? HOW do you know how much such a material would weigh, especially _IF_ you, at the same time, claim that it isn't possible (you probably mean 'its EXISTENCE isn't possible')?

Saying "But even yet" is really bad form, I am not even sure it qualifies as english.

Also, the implied logic behind something weighing a 'tonne or more' [sic] on a regular car, and thus NOT weighing 'a tonne or more' [sic] on something else (it wouldn't have to be -on- the car anyway, it could be -in- the car or -part- of the car) is slightly odd.

How well have you researched this topic anyway?

You DO know that it's possible to create 'repulsing energy fields' that do, in a spaceship, make collision with an asteroid impossible?

Using similar technology, it would be 100% possible to make a car completely 'indestructible', but some concessions would of course have to be made - the car can't have any protrusions, for example, or the powerful energy field would tear them apart.

The REAL point is, is there any point in making an energy field like that for a car, when the car would basically stop BEING a car at that point, and it'd make more sense to just make the car into a spaceship anyway

[–] MaximRecoil (4041) 2 years ago

"After all, diamond, for example, is the hardest known substance on earth simply b/c the atoms are the closest together."

No, a diamond's atoms aren't "the closest together," not even close to being the closest together. How close together the atoms are determines density, and density has nothing to do with hardness. A diamond's density is only 3.53 g/cm3. Lead on the other hand, which is quite soft, has a density of 11.34 g/cm3. Gold, which is also quite soft, has a density of 19.32 grams/cm3. Mercury, which is about as soft as you can get (it's a liquid at room temperature) has a density of 13.53 g/cm3.

"I don't see why that can'g be replicated in a lab somewhere."

Hardness doesn't necessarily translate to toughness. You can shatter a diamond with an ordinary steel hammer. KITT's "molecular-bonded shell" is pure fantasy.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

You did not answer his question! Need another five years to study it?

[–] MaximRecoil (4041) 2 years ago

"You did not answer his question!"

He asked more than one question, simple fellow. My reply addressed the questions and misconceptions in his second paragraph.

"Need another five years to study it?"

Your non sequitur is dismissed, Slow Doug.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Maybe read up on logic while you're at it?

[–] MaximRecoil (4041) 2 years ago

Your non sequitur is dismissed and since you didn't argue with anything I said, your tacit concession is noted.

[–] millsey72 (9521) 2 years ago

I don't know anything about geology but my college professor is a former geologist. He told me that a diamond is just as hard as a rock