A wooden table in the Blast-Cover Test
A wooden table produced a qualified result in the blast-cover experiment: the pressure disks behind it did not burst, but the figures behind it were broken. That pairing is the heart of the answer. The table tests cannot be reduced to an undamaged indicator meaning an undamaged person. The team specifically noted that splinters could cause injury or death independently of the shock wave. The results therefore invite a careful distinction between the pressure measurement and the damage recorded by the figures, rather than a broad promise of protection from every part of an explosion.
The Build Team began its investigation of everyday objects with a 3-pound charge of C-4. Rupture disks were positioned at various distances and set to burst at pressure levels associated in the test with injury and instant death. The reported thresholds were 13 psi and 75 psi, respectively. The team identified 10 and 20 feet as the distances marking the death and injury zones from the blast shock wave. Those values explain the test framework. They describe how the team organized this investigation, without establishing what every other explosion or arrangement would do.
For each object, the tests used those distances, pressure disks, and a foam-cutout figure intended to indicate shrapnel injuries. The wooden table was placed on its side facing the blast, with the disks and figures behind it. That orientation is part of the reported experiment. It matters when describing the result because the account is about the objects as positioned for testing, rather than tables in every possible arrangement. The disks and figures also had different roles: the former registered pressure effects, while the latter helped gauge damage from fragments. Both observations belong in the answer.
At 10 feet, the table was demolished by the blast, but the disks behind it did not burst. The protected figure was nevertheless broken. The table's condition and the disk's condition therefore differed, and the figure supplied another observation beside them. This is an especially useful point to retain when reading the wooden table result. An intact disk did not mean the cover itself remained intact, and it did not mean the figure escaped damage. The account gives a mixed result across these indicators, which is more informative than choosing only the most reassuring part.
At 20 feet, the table was heavily damaged. The disk associated with injury did not burst, although it buckled noticeably. The figure was broken here as well, since both figures were reported broken in the table tests. The greater distance therefore did not turn this into a scene of untouched cover and an untouched figure. It changed the reported condition of the table and pressure indicator, while damage remained part of the outcome. Buckling also deserves to remain in the description: the disk stayed unburst, but it was not described as unchanged.
The team's caution about splinters connects these observations. They noted that shrapnel from the splintered wooden table might cause injury or death independently of the shock wave. That is a reported qualification, rather than a separate theory added to explain the figures. It limits what the disk result can establish about overall protection. The disks staying intact speak to the pressure portion of the test; they do not remove the fragment concern the team identified. Keeping that concern beside the recorded figure damage gives the result its full shape and preserves the distinction the experiment was set up to examine.
The broader investigation also tested other everyday objects, but the table question can be answered from its own observations. The useful reading is to ask what each indicator recorded and what remained hazardous in the account. For the wooden table, the pressure disks did not burst, the tables suffered severe damage, and the figures were broken. Those are separate descriptions of the same tests. There is no need to claim that the tables offered no effect at all, or to claim complete protection. The evidence supports a limited pressure result alongside damage and a stated concern about fragments.
The wooden table conclusion is consequently specific: in these tests, the pressure disks behind the tables remained unburst, while the figures did not remain intact. The closer table was demolished, the farther one was heavily damaged, and the farther injury disk visibly buckled. The splinter concern explains why the pressure result should not stand alone as an assurance of safety. For the opening question, the answer is direct: intact indicators did not mean intact figures. The fuller account earns its value by preserving all of those observations together, with the qualification attached to the result rather than left out of the ending.