The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: billt on December 07, 2010, 11:53:03 AM
-
THE SHOT AS IT APPEARS
HOW THEY FAKED IT
-
THANK GOODNESS!
-
THANK GOODNESS!
I don't know, its a shame to see Darwin cheated. ;D
FQ13
-
I don't know, its a shame to see Darwin cheated. ;D
FQ13
Actually, I thought the guys were pretty talented. I would have no idea how to pull something like that off. The only thing that I thought gave it away as a fake was if it were in fact a real shot with a .50 BMG as it appeared, the hydrostatic shock could have easily caved in his skull, helmet and all. Bill T.
-
Actually, I thought the guys were pretty talented. I would have no idea how to pull something like that off. The only thing that I thought gave it away as a fake was if it were in fact a real shot with a .50 BMG as it appeared, the hydrostatic shock could have easily caved in his skull, helmet and all. Bill T.
Actually, that would be video I'd want to watch. (Not the skull thing obviously). Its just that we hear a lot about "hydroststic shock". Well, really? What I would be interested in is two watermelons in a pile. Shoot the top one. Does the one under it explode? I'm thinking no. Now, if only we knew someone with a Barret and decent computer skills........ ;D
FQ13
-
That guy does AWESOME videos, watch his channel. and most have the background how-to video on the special effects.
-
Its just that we hear a lot about "hydroststic shock". Well, really? What I would be interested in is two watermelons in a pile. Shoot the top one. Does the one under it explode? I'm thinking no. FQ13
Here is a picture in a Peterson publication called "Magnum Rifles" from 1980 that shows a paint can sitting on a 2 X 4 that was shot with a .375 H&H Magnum. The hydrostatic shock was enough to break the 2 X 4 underneath the can. This is a scan job of the page containing the photograph. (Top left 2 photos). A .50 BMG would have been more profound. Bill T.
(http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz50/billt460/001.jpg)
-
I think the hydrostatic shock has a lot to do with the material being shot and how long it takes (along with the pressure required) to rupture the outer wall of the item. The paint can created a higher amount of shock because it took more pressure to rupture the can wall than what would be required to rupture a melon.
Just for giggles, I would also like to see a comparison of different items being shot.
-
When you displace liquid it does not compress. Regardless if it's watermelon, paint, or human tissue. That energy has to be transferred somewhere. It is all based on the basic principal of hydraulics. A 200 pound NASCAR tire changer hanging on the end of a jack can lift a 3,000 pound car in 2 pulls on the handle. All hydraulics. It isn't so far fetched if you think about it. Bill T.
-
hmmmm...
In the paint can, the lid would give first and the greatest release of pressure would be upward. This, in turn, would cause and equal and opposite reaction downward, breaking the 2x4.
With a watermelon, there would more likely be less directed pressure so what was underneath might not receive the same force.
Maybe?
-
When you displace liquid it does not compress. Regardless if it's watermelon, paint, or human tissue. That energy has to be transferred somewhere. It is all based on the basic principal of hydraulics. A 200 pound NASCAR tire changer hanging on the end of a jack can lift a 3,000 pound car in 2 pulls on the handle. All hydraulics. It isn't so far fetched if you think about it. Bill T.
Yes, but it all depends on the density of the material as to how rapid the transfer occurs. Watermelon and paint are different in that respect, so the paint would react with more force.
Hydraulic pressure will take the path of least resistance....like Solus said, the lid. If the can were a totally sealed container the reaction should have been different and the board might not have broken. I just don't think the burst strength of the melon would contain the energy long enough to generate enough power to damage anyone or anything in the near vicinity.
Solus pretty much nailed it IMHO.
-
My mother sent me that vid last week and she got a 500 word essay on how stupid people are to do stuff like that ;D
I just sent her the link ;D
-
Sent some people the link that had forwarded me the email. This was the reply from one of my friends after a discussion about hydrostatic shock.
"I didn't think about the hydrostatic shock... yeah, it would definitely screw you up. Not to mention you'd need a new pair of pants no matter what happened to your head."
I couldn't help but share that nugget of thought.
-
Hydrostatic shock is BS that was disproved back in the 80's in a report by 2 PhD,s but I can't remember their names.
The human body is more than 50% water, if the theory were not crap then one shot and your attacker would explode.
-
I've never shot a full gallon bottle of water or a watermelon.
Do they "explode" when shot with a high powered round?
-
Found it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock#Fackler.27s_contra-claim
Fackler's contra-claim
Dr. Martin Fackler, a Vietnam-era trauma surgeon and wound ballistics researcher, claimed that hydrostatic shock had been disproved and that the assertion that a pressure wave plays a role in injury or incapacitation is a myth.[15] Others expressed similar views.[16][17]
Dr. Fackler based his argument on the lithotriptor, a tool commonly used to break up kidney stones. The lithotriptor uses sonic pressure waves which are stronger than those caused by most handgun bullets[citation needed], yet it produces no damage to soft tissues whatsoever. Hence, Fackler argued, ballistic pressure waves cannot damage tissue either.[18] However, tissue damage due to lithotriptors has been documented.[19][20][21]
Dr. Fackler also claimed that a study of rifle bullet wounds in Vietnam (Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team) found “no cases of bones being broken, or major vessels torn, that were not hit by the penetrating bullet. In only two cases, an organ that was not hit (but was within a few cm of the projectile path), suffered some disruption.” Dr. Fackler cited a personal communication with R. F. Bellamy.[15] However, Bellamy’s published findings the following year[22] estimated that 10% of fractures in the data set might be due to indirect injuries, and one specific case is described in detail (pp. 153–154). In addition, the published analysis documents five instances of abdominal wounding in cases where the bullet did not penetrate the abdominal cavity (pp. 149–152), a case of lung contusion resulting from a hit to the shoulder (pp. 146–149), and a case of indirect effects on the central nervous system (p. 155). Rather than contradict distant injuries, as Fackler claimed, the WDMET data from Vietnam actually provides supporting evidence.[22][23]
A summary of the debate was published in 2009 as part of a Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research.
Fackler [10, 13] however, disputed the shock wave theory, claiming there is no physical evidence to support it, although some support for this theory had already been provided by Harvey [20, 21], Kolsky [31], Suneson et. al. [42, 43], and Crucq [5]. Since that time, other authors also suggest there is increasing evidence to support the theory that shock waves from high velocity bullets can cause tissue related damage and damage to the nervous system. This has been shown in various experiments using simulant models [24, 48]. One of the most interesting is a study by Courtney and Courtney [4] who showed a link between traumatic brain injury and pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities.
– Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research[24]
-
I've never shot a full gallon bottle of water or a watermelon.
Do they "explode" when shot with a high powered round?
Yes.
Fill the jug with oil or sand and see what happens. I've done it and most of the time the jug gets knocked off the table and the jug splits and some sand spills. The oil ruptures the jug, but not with the violence of the water. Energy is transferred differently in different materials with different reactions. I don't know, maybe water expands faster. Take two buckets and fill one with water and one with oil and then drop a brick into each one and see how it reacts. The principle is the same, just a smaller object at a much higher speed.
Like I posted earlier, one of the main contributing factors is the density of the material being shot, combined with the container, as to how violent the energy transfer is.
I've shot 5 gallon steel cans full of water with high-powered rifle rounds and all it did was blow the cap off the pour spout because that was the weak point. I've shot gallon jugs and had the cap blow off. Two liter bottles have a stronger cap and they tend to make a big explosion when hit with high velocity rounds.
I think we are dancing different terminology around. I do believe there is a "shock wave" created by high velocity bullets because you can see it on a hot day. I don't think the shock wave created by the bullet is what makes a melon or jug explode. If the wave had that kind of energy itself, then theoretically, all the bullet would have to do is come close and the wave would do damage.
In my opinion, it is simply "dynamic energy transfer".....and the extent of the resulting 'explosion' is related to the material and the strength of the surrounding material.
We've all seen super slow motion video of a bullet hitting a block of ballistic gel. It swells and expands and then snaps back into shape. What if you placed the block in a tight-fitting container? Would it explode the container? Or would the energy transfer move the block backward like a jug of sand?
Heck, I don't know....just going with what I've seen.
YMMV
-
You can watch the "Shock wave" in Ballistic gelatin, the reason it performs so impressively in jugs of water and not so much with oil is because oil is thicker and moves away from the wave slower than water does, sand on the other hand just shifts out of the way without transferring much if any of the energy.
-
You can watch the "Shock wave" in Ballistic gelatin, the reason it performs so impressively in jugs of water and not so much with oil is because oil is thicker and moves away from the wave slower than water does, sand on the other hand just shifts out of the way without transferring much if any of the energy.
Exactly......density/consistency of material.........the above was my FQ version (long-winded ;D ) way of agreeing with what you posted on Fackler.
I used to read a lot of articles by him and Ed Sanow.
-
It's on YouTube, it must be true. Oh, wait....
-
Exactly......density/consistency of material.........the above was my FQ version (long-winded ;D ) way of agreeing with what you posted on Fackler.
I used to read a lot of articles by him and Ed Sanow.
That's the other guy ! THANK YOU PegLeg ;D
Found what was tickling my brain ;D
http://www.stoppingpower.net/books/book_stopping.asp
-
Solus is correct, as are Peg and Tom.
Air is a fluid just as H2O and oil. It's displaced by the energy of the projectile but doubtful with enough energy to cause any serious harm unless at super extreme conditions such as the expansion of super heated gases from a monster explosion. At that point, the percussion of air can and will do serious physical damage.
A 50 caliber round passing by your head may puncture an ear drum but not much more. It's merely displacing a wave of air at an ever decreasing frequency due in part by the density of the medium that it's traveling in...
The reason we could listen to submarines from 2000 miles away was because of the medium that the sound was traveling within: sea water at a specific depth and with a specific temperature and salinity!
Physics is cool but it ain't rocket science!
-
Solus is correct, as are Peg and Tom.
Air is a fluid just as H2O and oil. It's displaced by the energy of the projectile but doubtful with enough energy to cause any serious harm unless at super extreme conditions such as the expansion of super heated gases from a monster explosion. At that point, the percussion of air can and will do serious physical damage.
A 50 caliber round passing by your head may puncture an ear drum but not much more. It's merely displacing a wave of air at an ever decreasing frequency due in part by the density of the medium that it's traveling in...
The reason we could listen to submarines from 2000 miles away was because of the medium that the sound was traveling within: sea water at a specific depth and with a specific temperature and salinity!
Physics is cool but it ain't rocket science!
Would that be a function of the Mass or relative lack there of ?
But Rocket science is physics ;D
-
Let me try.....
Speed of sound in air is about 1168 feet/second or 768 mph.
Speed of sound in water is about 1500 METERS/second.
The more dense the medium, the more displacement of the medium when disrupted. The reason the water bottle or watermelon explodes violently is more a product of the CONTAINMENT rather than the medium!
Bullets have a very crumby ballistic movement through water. The higher the velocity of the projectile, the less damage it produces.
-
So what you are saying is the shock waves travels through the water like a car on the highway until it comes in contact with the Plastic of the jug, or the rind of the watermelon which acts like a bridge abutment would on the car.
Result, sh!t flies every where in both cases ;D
-
On the nose Tom....
Energy, if unrestricted, would travel forever in a vacuum. Only the contact with another object or opposite energy would cause it to change or slow.
As someone has already said, Newtons third law.....
-
Let me try.....
Speed of sound in air is about 1168 feet/second or 768 mph.
Speed of sound in water is about 1500 METERS/second.
The more dense the medium, the more displacement of the medium when disrupted. The reason the water bottle or watermelon explodes violently is more a product of the CONTAINMENT rather than the medium!
Bullets have a very crumby ballistic movement through water. The higher the velocity of the projectile, the less damage it produces.
YES!
Thank you Tim, that was what I was stumble-fingering around in my previous statements trying to get to, the containment or container is more directly involved with the 'violence of the explosion than the media, even though the media is also a contributing factor.
This thread definitely has me thinking about doing some testing.
No .50 cal, but a 30-06 with 180gr soft points might get me going. Maybe put a melon on a piece of pvc pipe with an egg underneath and shoot the melon to see what happens to the egg. ;D
-
YES!
Thank you Tim, that was what I was stumble-fingering around in my previous statements trying to get to, the containment or container is more directly involved with the 'violence of the explosion than the media, even though the media is also a contributing factor.
This thread definitely has me thinking about doing some testing.
No .50 cal, but a 30-06 with 180gr soft points might get me going. Maybe put a melon on a piece of pvc pipe with an egg underneath and shoot the melon to see what happens to the egg. ;D
Shoot a full paint can with the lid off. We will see just how much reaction the media has without complete containment. Maybe anchor the can to the "board" so the can doesn't get tossed.
Shoot half a watermelon, both parallel with the cut and perpendicular to it.
-
Shoot a full paint can with the lid off. We will see just how much reaction the media has without complete containment. Maybe anchor the can to the "board" so the can doesn't get tossed.
Shoot half a watermelon, both parallel with the cut and perpendicular to it.
Yeah, good idea....paint cans are cheap at Lowes.
I'm looking at getting one of those cheap $40 digital video cameras in the near future so I might wait and record the results and post them. I have a digital video recorder on my regular camera, but it is an older model and doesn't have sound.......and ya gotta have sound. ;)
-
Some time back, Mythbusters was doing a "Shooting fish in a barrel" episode. Regardless of what they were trying to prove, they had set a wooden staved barrel filled with water and Jamie was shooting straight down into the barrel with a 9mm handgun.
When he shot into the barrel, the slo-mo camera showed the water erupting up out of the barrel, the barrel jumping off of the floor and I think you could see the circumferential expansion of the barrel against the stave and rings of the barrel.
on a side note.....not once did the 9mm round penetrate the bottom of the barrel nor would I expect it too.
-
Some time back, Mythbusters was doing a "Shooting fish in a barrel" episode. Regardless of what they were trying to prove, they had set a wooden staved barrel filled with water and Jamie was shooting straight down into the barrel with a 9mm handgun.
When he shot into the barrel, the slo-mo camera showed the water erupting up out of the barrel, the barrel jumping off of the floor and I think you could see the circumferential expansion of the barrel against the stave and rings of the barrel.
on a side note.....not once did the 9mm round penetrate the bottom of the barrel nor would I expect it too.
All a product of mass, speed, and displacement.....like a ship or sub in the water.
Slower = less turbulence while faster = more turbulence or wake. The confinement of the barrel creates the violence. Shoot the same 9mm into a pond and nothing spectacular really happens.
Mythbusters also did a show where they tested bullet penetration in water. They were testing the Hollywood myth of bullets doing great damage if they hit you under water. A .50 BMG round didn't do much below the surface either.
-
Some time back, Mythbusters was doing a "Shooting fish in a barrel" episode. Regardless of what they were trying to prove, they had set a wooden staved barrel filled with water and Jamie was shooting straight down into the barrel with a 9mm handgun.
When he shot into the barrel, the slo-mo camera showed the water erupting up out of the barrel, the barrel jumping off of the floor and I think you could see the circumferential expansion of the barrel against the stave and rings of the barrel.
on a side note.....not once did the 9mm round penetrate the bottom of the barrel nor would I expect it too.
All a product of mass, speed, and displacement.....like a ship or sub in the water.
Slower = less turbulence while faster = more turbulence or wake. The confinement of the barrel creates the violence. Shoot the same 9mm into a pond and nothing spectacular really happens.
Mythbusters also did a show where they tested bullet penetration in water. They were testing the Hollywood myth of bullets doing great damage if they hit you under water. A .50 BMG round didn't do much below the surface either.
Worked pretty good when the used the mini gun though ;D
-
Worked pretty good when the used the mini gun though ;D
Everything goes better with a mini-gun...... ;D ;D
Also thought this was pretty cool:
Why bullets do damage
When things move, they have momentum. The faster they move and the heavier they are, the more momentum they have. A truck trundling along slowly has a lot of momentum because it weighs so much. Even though bullets are tiny, they have lots of momentum because they go so fast. They also have huge amounts of kinetic energy, which they get from the chemical energy of the burning propellant. Bullets do damage when they transfer their energy to the things they hit. The faster something loses its momentum, the more force it produces. (One way to define force is as the rate at which an object's momentum changes.) A rifle bullet coming to a stop in a tenth of a second produces as much force as a heavy, slow moving truck coming to rest in 10 seconds. Imagine being hit by a truck—and you'll have some idea why bullets do so much damage.
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/bullets.html
(http://cdn.explainthatstuff.com/shelldamage.jpg)
-
Everything goes better with a mini-gun...... ;D ;D
Also thought this was pretty cool:
I've always figured that because of Equal and Opposite, that you absorb more energy when you fire a gun than the object hit by the bullet.
I know that the force is distributed over a greater area of your body and the design of the gun and the longer time it takes to deliver the force at your end all means it does less damage to you than the bullet, which is designed to maximize damage, does at the other end.
However, I have trouble with the truck analogy....no matter how good the recoil pad on the bumper of the truck, you are gonna be hurting.
-
I've always figured that because of Equal and Opposite, that you absorb more energy when you fire a gun than the object hit by the bullet.
I know that the force is distributed over a greater area of your body and the design of the gun and the longer time it takes to deliver the force at your end all means it does less damage to you than the bullet, which is designed to maximize damage, does at the other end.
However, I have trouble with the truck analogy....no matter how good the recoil pad on the bumper of the truck, you are gonna be hurting.
I do too, kinda.....I would have used a baseball or brick for a comparison when talking mass, velocity and impact.
And referring to being hit by a vehicle, Yes (speaking from experience) you will.
;D