How Videos Are Faked On You Tube, (Excellent Job !)

[PegLeg45]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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  
I just sent her the link  

[JC5123]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[Solus]

I've  never shot a full gallon bottle of water or a watermelon.

Do they "explode" when shot with a high powered round?

 

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

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]

[PegLeg45]

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

[tombogan03884]

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.

[PegLeg45]

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   ) way of agreeing with what you posted on Fackler.
I used to read a lot of articles by him and Ed Sanow.

[Ichiban]

It's on YouTube, it must be true.  Oh, wait....