The energy of a bullet is based on mass and velocity right, I believe it is one of the things you said and I read. So when we talk about "foot pounds" of energy in a bullet we are including an "understood" velocity factor.Ammo manufacturers will show data for a particular cartridge and bullet and show the velocity at various ranges and it slows down as it goes distance. The energy value (ft.lbs) also diminish with distance. So the the velocity and the energy are "joined at the hip".When the bullet strikes moose or ballistic jell the velocity drops off quickly because of ?? Maybe "friction" with the media a bit but the energy of the bullet is transferred to the media (look at one of the many super slow motion vids. of a bullet going through some media)If you don't see that then there is really no point in going any farther with this issue.Is this the point where I insult you and spout derogitorium? I think I'll pass.
I have already said several times that they are related. What is the matter with you? You keep asking the same thing, expecting a different answer. The physics guy has already said that looking at energy numbers is mis-guided, and apparently he's on your side. What more do you want?"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."At this point, you should probably grow a sack, and put some balls in it. Pass away. It looks good on you.Probably couldn't hurt to stop riding around on coat tails either...R.
I reckon that if you have been warned already for getting off topic and making derogatory comments to fellow forum members, then we will not be graced with your fund of knowledge for very long. And I mean that in the most sincere and respectful way.
I see. So I have you to thank for recieving a warning on this site for "insulting" other memebers? So this is now not about what is energy and what energy doesn't mean, regarding so called killing energy, as it does have to do with "putting me in my place", and protecting your buddies? Yes, the warning was from me. It is a measly 5 points out of 100 which disappears fairly quickly. It has nothing to do with protecting my buddies, and was simply for the insults in general. I made the warning as small as I could just to say we can't tolerate those kind of insults. I am sure you will adjust to that.I don't recall inviting you to do damn thing, but its nice someone showed up that could at least carry a conversation and contibute. No problem with disagreeing, our discussion was at least focused on the topic.I am aware of the equation to calculate energy. I know you knew that part. It just that you said energy is not valid and velocity is everything when indeed energy is both mass and velocity combined. Actually energy is affected greatly by velocity since the term is squared.And yet you agree with me that it is a mis-guided term? And I am wrong? You are correct. The ft-lb energy description is misguided. It is a comparison term used to describe the work that the kinetic energy in a travelling bullet can do. I think the hunting community uses that term because it is easier to understand than Joules (kg*m2/s2).You say above that bullet energy actually has a unit of motion? The unit is foot pounds. Nothing else. It is most certainly not foot pounds per second, is it? It is simply a description of the energy required to move a mass of 1 lb though a distance of 1 foot against the force of gravity. When you do the calculation of this work done, the acceleration due to gravity (m/s2) cancels out the velocity units. The proper energy term is Joules and has the units of kg*m2/s2. Easy to see the mass and velocity squared units there. I find it unfortunate that a fella that has spent 7 years in a physics departement is more bent on settling a score as opposed to setting the record straight. Am I to call you proffessor now? Out of curiosity, what exactly did you do in the physics department? I am not bent on anything other than to try to help members understand some of this terminology. The kinetic energy and misguided term ft-lbs can be confusing. I was the tech for the area and designed and set up and maintained the labs and all the equipment. I often assisted in the lab instruction. I do research at NAIT now with our new novaNAIT team. One cool lab we did was a ballistic pendulum with a .22 caliber rifle. We had the students do all the energy calculations and compare them to the manufacturers numbers. I apologize if I came off as trying to settle a score. I have many more questions, but I guess we'll see where this goes first. I am impressed you are using physics and math to understand this all as opposed to following some of the rhetoric out there.R.
In the end axe are we still not just talking about energy. To say energy has nothing to do with it just doesn't cut it with me. Create that energy how you want either with velocity or mass in the end we are still just creating energy. We create the velocity with energy we send that energy down range in the from of velocity and expel that energy on the target. Like I said a while back really all the velocity is is trapped energy or a from of energy.Again it's all about the energy.
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.
This is true, and if the " book worms " believe it to be false please explain to us how a muzzle brake works. The quote about the US army feeling the 223 / 5.56 is better at killing hostile targets is false, weight of rifle and ammo were the only considerations. The M1A1 in .308 has better ballistics and a higher 1 shot kill rate. Thus the big push for either the 6.5 Grendel or the 6.8 SPC , to fill the gap. Real world experience often differs from how it shoulda been from penciling it out on paper. And that apply's to a lot more then ballistics!!!
Hey Rain Man. LAS, I don't really give a rats arse if you approve, your math is flawed and your attitude is piss poor . It's a Disscussion forum not a pissing match.
I have really enjoyed reading this post - and albeit Rman is very direct in his approach, he has a bit of a way in dealing with Deerman(Duffy) . I sincerely hope that he reflects on this when he initiates another ambiguous question to try to raise ire.I am not a physicist, and certainly would not be able to speak to this as Axe and Rman.It's holes in vital organs/arteries/tissue that kill. The rest of it is just trying to quantify how we cause those holes to happen. It is a pretty sophisticated culmination of variables. Question - I also have a high power microwave. Assuming I have a long and tethered extension cord, would hurtling the microwave with a tribouchet at lets say 200mph increase it's lethality at a stationary Moose?
Lets try this, then:"From the viewpoint of physics (dynamics, to be exact), a firearm, as for most weapons, is a system for delivering maximum destructive energy to the target with minimum delivery of energy on the shooter. The momentum delivered to the target however cannot be any more than that (due to recoil) on the shooter. This is because the momentum imparted to the bullet is equal to that imparted to the gun-shooter system.Assuming the gun and shooter are at rest, the force on the bullet is equal to that on the gun-shooter. This is due to Newton's third law of motion (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction). Consider a system where the gun and shooter have a combined mass M and the bullet has a mass m. When the gun is fired, the two systems move away from one another with new velocities V and v respectively. But the law of conservation of momentum states that the magnitudes of their momenta must be equal. Since force equals the rate of change in momentum and the initial momenta are zero, the force on the bullet must therefore be the same as the force on the gun/shooter. Hollywood depictions of firearm victims being thrown through plate-glass windows are inaccurate. Were this to be the case, the shooter would also be thrown backwards with equal force. Gunshot victims frequently fall or collapse when shot; this is less a result of the momentum of the bullet pushing them over, but is primarily caused by physical damage or psychological effects, perhaps combined with being off-balance. This shows that despite the high velocity of the bullet, the small bullet-mass to shooter-mass ratio results in a low recoil velocity (V) although the force and momentum are equal.However, the smaller mass of the bullet, compared that of the gun-shooter system, allows significantly more kinetic energy to be imparted to the bullet than to the shooter. The kinetic energy for the two systems are for the gun-shooter system and for the bullet. The ratio of the kinetic energies is the same as the ratio of the masses (and is independent of velocity). Since the mass of the bullet is much less than that of the shooter there is more kinetic energy transferred to the bullet than to the shooter. Once discharged from the weapon, the bullet's energy decays throughout its flight, until the remainder is dissipated by colliding with a target (e.g. deforming the bullet and target).When the bullet strikes, its high velocity and small frontal cross-section means that it will exert large stresses in any object it hits. This usually results in it penetrating any soft object, such as flesh. The energy is then dissipated in the wound track formed by the passage of the bullet."R.
Maybe that is what motivates you to start a thread but not me. The discussion was interesting and enlightening for quite awhile. Any "ire" that has been raised has has come from the intolerant and closed minded.
Author
Topic: Energy and what it does to game (Read 12524 times)
