mortablunt
Member
I am still a supporter of the big hole school. Bigger bullet = bigger hole = more damage = faster kill.
I think that if you run the numbers you will find that this supposed pressure at the point of origin is a little low.Suppose the pressure at POO is 1,000 PSI.
I think that if you run the numbers you will find that this supposed pressure at the point of origin is a little low.
For what it might be worth to anyone interested in the topic, Courtney runs through similar calculations in this paper.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701267.pdf
He also discusses situations which would prevent the pressure from falling off as rapidly as one might expect from calculations based on a purely homogenous target medium.
Losing 100 ft-lbs of kinetic energy in 0.02 feet of
penetration would create a force of 5,000 lbs because
100 ft-lbs/0.02 ft = 5,000 lbs.
This is so flawed it's not funny:
1 pound dropped from 1 foot generates 1 ft/lb of energy
ft-lb, NOT ft/lb
If you really think that a bullet has more energy imparted onto it than onto the gun firing it,
Well, this is progress. Finally an admission that you have been presenting errors as fact.MachIVshooter said:Been going off of memory from casual reading of A&P books years ago
There is no ambiguity: the midbrain, pons, and medulla (oblongata) comprise the brainstem.it seems there is some ambiguity about what, besides the medulla, is technically "brainstem"
Claimed by whom? Where? My quote was this:General anesthesia does not shut down the entire autonomic nervous system, as was claimed.
So, just like you have been making errors in anatomy, you are now apparently claiming I said things that I did not. You're really helping your credibility.Loosedhorse said:General anesthesia suppresses brainstem function, which is why an artificial respirator must be employed. So, general anesthesia would prevent a brainstem-mediated general (endocrine) release of adrenaline into the blood, or other brainstem-mediated changes in blood pressure.
Who's this "we"? YOU can make whatever blanket statement you want.MachIVshooter said:Can we just make a blanket statement that you're a jerk?
I was trying to spare you yet more embarrassment (if you in fact can ever be embarrassed). Tell you what: you explain to us the difference between these waves, okay? (For a bonus, you can explain why any such differences are important to our discussion.) After all, you've been doing so well with anatomy...!And you still haven't answered whether you understand the difference between an acoustic shock wave and a ballistic shock wave or pressure wave.
Well, guess what? We agree. Well said.However, due to the mass, the rate of acceleration is inversely proportionate; The much lighter bullet is accelerated much faster and to a much higher velocity. Because energy is velocity squared times mass, the bullet produces much more energy.
He's done some practical experimentation that provided interesting results. Enough to demonstrate that his basic premise has value. Not necessarily enough to demonstrate that it could be turned into something practical.Are you keen to do it (and include your extensions to his theory)?
He's not talking about psi/pressure, he's talking about the fact that kinetic energy divided by the distance required to stop the projectile is proportional to the force applied to the target medium by the projectile.Losing 100 ft-lbs of kinetic energy in 0.02 feet of
penetration would create a force of 5,000 lbs because
100 ft-lbs/0.02 ft = 5,000 lbs.
This is so flawed it's not funny:
-100 lbs/.02 ft=5,000 pounds per square foot, which is 35 PSI (5,000/144)
Certainly there is, and it's VERY basic physics.There is not a simple calculation to turn ft/lbs of kinetic energy into pound of force
If you work out the units, you'll find that Kinetic Energy and Force are very closely related.KE variable is found with velocity and mass, force variable is found with distance/ time/acceleration and mass,
That's apparent. What's confusing is that, knowing that you didn't understand the science, you would think it made sense to try to nitpick basic math and physics calculations in a published and peer-reviewed document written by two persons with doctorates in physics from MIT and Harvard.I'm not sure how one figures the force of an object that rapidly decelerates from a high velocity on impact.
You can settle that by a simple expiment -- when you shoot a deer this fall and saw off the top of the skull with the attached antlers, look to see if there is evidence of ruptured blood vessels in the brain.I wonder if the success of hydrostatic shock is, more simply, a sudden devastating burst in blood pressure which might cause rupturing of blood vessels within the brain.
He's not talking about psi/pressure, he's talking about the fact that kinetic energy divided by the distance required to stop the projectile is proportional to the force applied to the target medium by the projectile.
Force = Kinetic energy / distance.
By the way, Force can also be related to momentum. Force is proportional to the momentum of the projectile divided by the time it takes to stop the projectile.
Force = Momentum / time
Force = Momentum / time
Who's this "we"? YOU can make whatever blanket statement you want.
You can settle that by a simple expiment -- when you shoot a deer this fall and saw off the top of the skull with the attached antlers, look to see if there is evidence of ruptured blood vessels in the brain.
Mike, I think that theory was long ago discarded. (Knowing that, and knowing what the results would show no rupture, some here have still suggested you try it.)I wonder if the success of hydrostatic shock is, more simply, a sudden devastating burst in blood pressure which might cause rupturing of blood vessels within the brain.
If we did that (examine the brain of a gun shot deer for evidence of hydrostatic shock) we'd end all debate and gun forums would wither and die.You have to ask why it hasn't been done...
No need, since we're not talking about examining a live deer -- we're talking about doing a necropsy. All you need for that is a microscope and some staining fluid.Anyone have access to a MRI machine?
No need <for MRI>, since we're not talking about examining a live deer -- we're talking about doing a necropsy. All you need for that is a microscope and some staining fluid.
Your figure was at the point of origin (POO), the chart does not reflect point of origin energies. Your figure was low the way it was stated.First, I was addressing the assertions that my 1,000 PSI POO figure was low, which seems to have come from seeing that 5,000 pound force figure, because the chart reflects 1,000 to be on the high end.
I used the calculator you found and it indicates that 5000 poundals of force will accelerate a 5000 lb vehicle at 1fps per second, not 32fps per second. Not too surprising given that F=ma, or F/m=a. 5000/5000 = 1.Second, are we are to believe that if you fire a bullet developing 100 ft/lbs into the back of a 5000 pound vehicle and the bullet stops within .2 ft, that vehicle will accelerate at a rate of 32 FPS per second? Because that's what 5000 pounds force will do.
No, theoretically it would exert infinite force. If you divide a non-zero quantity by zero you get infinity.So a bullet that is stopped at 0.000 Feet penetration exerts no force,
It seems a bit flawed because you don't understand the physics or apparently even the math involved.Seems a bit flawed, doesn't it?
I didn't so much as hint that he did. I was trying to point out how badly flawed your assessment of converting kinetic energy to force was and thought it might be worthwhile to throw in the bit about momentum to show how momentum and energy relate.Except Courtney didn't incorporate time or momentum
You can calculate force from KE if you know how much distance it took the bullet to stop. I showed you how. Two persons with doctorates in physics from MIT & Harvard showed you how in their paper.Since all he gives is KE, you cannot find momentum and therefore cannot solve for force. Two projectiles that develop the same KE can have very different momentum:
You are laboring under a severe misapprehension. The equation that force = KE/distance is NOT theory in any sense that suggests it might be invalid or might not reflect real-world behavior. It is well-accepted science and has been for a few centuries. It has been carefully verified by experimental methods.Or are we to go with the theory that force=KE/distance
You're not going to be able to blame this on Courtney. No penetration equals infinite force.Because that's how Courtney's math works out; No penetration=no force and deeper penetration=less force. Kinda goes against conservation of energy, doesn't it?
I used the calculator you found and it indicates that 5000 poundals of force will accelerate a 5000 lb vehicle at 1fps per second, not 32fps per second. Not too surprising given that F=ma, or F/m=a. 5000/5000 = 1.
AND, that assumes an inelastic collision (a purely theoretical concept), not a real-world elastic collision where much of the force can be used up deforming the objects involved as opposed to being used entirely to create motion. In case it's not obvious, this discussion is PRECISELY about elastic collisions because we're interested in the damage done by the bullet.
You're performing calculations that prove nothing other than that you don't understand the basic concepts involved in the physics of moving objects. It's a waste of your time to perform the calculations, a waste of your time to post them and a waste of other people's time to read them.
The paper you're referring to was written by two people with doctorates in physics and has been read and reviewed by other people who understand the math & physics.
So show us how it's done.