Hey! Your ability as a comedian far surpasses your ability to understand what a bullet dose and to explain what you are thinking.Now I have to go back and "hit some bricks"again. Its kind of fun.
After all of that you think that I'm the one that doesn't understand what a bullet does, and I can't explain it?Just wow.You're right, you do need to hit the bricks. You have absolutely nothing to contribute here.R.
After "all of that" is the reason I said it.But here I am dragged down to your level of personal confrontation instead of sticking to the topic and talking about "energy and what it does to game"Perhaps you should have started a new thread "velocity and what it does to game" instead of bringing your theories here.
. Duffy once prove someone wrong. Oh ya you can't.
Energy does nothing to game!The bullet has energy and that energy does work on and in the animal it hits and that contributes to the animal leaving a blood trail if the bullet exits and the animal's death.Do you agree with that Rman?JustinC need not answer.
About the same as you darcy.
Before you guys say too much more about the rifle vs microwave power comparison, you may want to reconsider your calculations.We must consider the time period over which we are defining that horsepower output or the first derivative. It isn't fair to consider the microwave at 1100 J/s (1100W) continuous average power output and the 300 RUM bullet stopping in an animal in mere fractions of a second. Better to consider instantaneous power and make it fair if we are talking about the killing period of time. Better yet to talk about good old kinetic energy like all the experts do!For example:300 RUM Bullet = 5000 Jhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.300_Remington_Ultra_MagnumDelta t = time in which bullet kills(decelerates in) the animal = (dt) 0.1 seconds ( this is very conservative and is likely many factors quicker than that). I just don't have an exact number and it would vary.so 5000J/0.1 s = 50000 J/s or 50000W/(746W/hp) = 67 hp or very much higher (instantaneously) based on the dt (deceleration time of the bullet in the animal)Microwave1100J/s or 1100W 1100W/(746W/hp) = 1.5 hp
You are still very confused as to what you are trying to say.The only reason that the bullet has energy is because of its velocity.The amount of energy expended in the animal cannot be greater than the amount of energy in recoil. That amount of energy only decreases as the bullet gets farther away from the muzzle. Kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. In physics, a force is said to do work when it acts on a body so that there is a displacement of the point of application, however small, in the direction of the force. Thus a force does work when it results in movement.You can make blanket statements all you like, and I will not waiver from the facts. I have already told you, several times, that there is energy involved. I have shown you mathmatically that there is energy involved. I have stated that velocity and energy are related, but it is not a linear relationship. I have also shown you how much energy is involved. 1 Watt Hour. That is the same as 4000 foot pounds. Those two units and numbers don't mean anything because they are not in motion.Again, if it was energy that killed the animal, you too, would be dead everytime you pulled trigger. The animal actually feels less energy than you do, under recoil!You really need to stop thinking about energy with regards to power. They are two separate things. Why can't you just accept facts?John "Pondoro" Taylor stated that energy was "Surely the most misleading thing in the world where rifles are concerned. Gunsmiths invariably quote it because, particularly since the advent of the Magnum, it is decidedly flattering to their weapon.""Today's shooters are lead to believe that energy is the main determinant of some mythical "knock down" power and often fail to take bullet weight, design, sectional density and, most importantly, proper placement into account. Of course nothing could be further from the truth." Why are you still trying to talk about something that has been revealed to be nothing but useless?Stop perpetuating one of the worst diservices ever done to the shooting comunity by spewing nonsense numbers and figures that do nothing but show ignorance and lack of knowledge.Instead of makeing statements, why not ask some valid questions pertinent to what has been shown to be true?Again. Contribute, start a discussion, or piss off. R.
Darcy I can cherry pick posts here and there and make you all wrong. The problem is I am not doing that. I stated that already. I will post what I said when I find it again. It has been a while. I have proven in the past. Duffy has never prove anything in all his posts on AO or here.
In order for your calculation to be correct, the rifle would deliver 67 hp to your shoulder. It does not.Also, I believe that you are trying to show joules, which is the same as a watt hour or foot pounds, in motion, it that equation, which would be joules per second, per second, which is not what you are showing. In order to properly determine the power the bullet has, you first have to calculate the power in the powder in the case, and apply it to the bullet at distance and include time, and many deltas.Newtons laws are a bitch!As I said very early on, it is much more easy to look at bullet velocities to achieve desired results.R.
Rman, unfortunately what you are saying just isn't true along with many of your other calculations.Please read the following Wikipedia page. It explains this all much more concisely than I have time to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RecoilAlthough energy must be conserved, this does not mean that the kinetic energy of the bullet must be equal to the recoil energy of the gun: in fact, it is many times greater. For example, a bullet fired from an M16 rifle has approximately 1763 Joules of kinetic energy as it leaves the muzzle, but the recoil energy of the gun is less than 7 Joules. Despite this imbalance, energy is still conserved because the total energy in the system before firing (the chemical energy stored in the propellant) is equal to the total energy after firing (the kinetic energy of the recoiling firearm, plus the kinetic energy of the bullet and other ejecta, plus the heat energy from the explosion). In order to work out the distribution of kinetic energy between the firearm and the bullet, it is necessary to use the law of conservation of momentum in combination with the law of conservation of energy.The same reasoning applies when the bullet strikes a target. The bullet may have a kinetic energy in the hundreds or even thousands of joules, which in theory is enough to lift a person well off the ground. This energy, however, cannot be efficiently given to the target, because total momentum must be conserved, too. Approximately, only a fraction not larger than the inverse ratio of the masses can be transferred. The rest is spent in the deformation or shattering of the bullet (depending on bullet construction), damage to the target (depending on target construction), and heat dissipation. In other words, because the bullet strike on the target is an inelastic collision, a minority of the bullet energy is used to actually impart momentum to the target. This is why a ballistic pendulum relies on conservation of bullet momentum and pendulum energy rather than conservation of bullet energy to determine bullet velocity; a bullet fired into a hanging block of wood or other material will spend much of its kinetic energy to create a hole in the wood and dissipate heat as friction as it slows to a stop.Gunshot victims frequently do collapse when shot, which is usually due to psychological motives, a direct hit to the central nervous system, and/or massive blood loss (see stopping power), and is not the result of the momentum of the bullet pushing them over.[3]
Again Rman, see the explanation of recoil in the Wikipedia explanation. You seem to think that recoil energy and bullet muzzle energy must be equal, they are not. You are confusing conservation of momentum and conservation of energy(many more factors in a rifle discharge). Newton's laws work fine but you must not compare bullet and recoil energy to be equal.
You don't have to shout angrily at me. I can read just fine.Then you must stop rudely insulting members on here and asking them to "piss off", "get the f**k out of here", and calling them "MF'ers"I did look at that yesterday. My issue with it that we are back discussing energy units that have no motion attched to them. And that isn't what we are trying to do. When we see things, we want to put them into terms that we understand. A rifle must be powerful, because it makes a big noise and kills stuff. So, we tend to want to look a big numbers to justify all of the power. The problem is that the energy numbers that we are looking at, are not power numbers. And when we caluculate power numbers, they are very small. It just doesn't look right, compared to what we feel.Newtons Laws are still represented in the Wiki post above, and they are agreeing with what I am trying to say. Check out the underlined part. You can't create free energy, the sum of the parts must equal the whole. Mythbusters did a show on this very thing, they found the same things I have found.Think of a steel gong. If placed 67 horsepower on a steel gong in 1/10 of a second, with the surface area of a .308 bullet, it would damn near vapourize, if not be totaly shattered and deformed. R.
You have based your erroneous arguments on the fact that you believed bullet kinetic energy must equal recoil energy which is wrong. You said that explicitly, that is why I highlighted it, not to shout but to emphasize. You invited us to prove you wrong with physics and math which I did. Admit that and accept the correction. Your last post is back pedalling.BTW, bullet energy does actually have a unit of motion which is kg *m2/s2 or Joules. It is often referred to in terms of ft- lbs of energy which is just a comparison term that is actually a force over a distance and is used quite loosely. It is actually a term used with the gravity constant 32.163 ft/s2 to describe the force the bullets kinetic energy could exert on a mass. ft- lbs is a convenient but mis-guided term used to describe bullet kinetic energy. That is why you don't see a unit of velocity associated with it like the proper Joule unit.I did learn a thing or two in my 7 years working in NAIT's physics department.
Author
Topic: Energy and what it does to game (Read 12529 times)
