Questions about the irrelevance of energy (ft-lbs)

[Stinky Coyote]

that's what's actually irrelevant

lol, does not matter if I'm a tool, or why

 

[Lawnboi]

 

[HandgunHTR]

Start at the start. Does not matter what the wound channel is in animals. What matters is showing/measuring the work in gel constant so we can look for what we want across all bullets for hunting and all impact velocities hunters use.

Wound channels in animals are much more objective than what you are trying to concoct. You want the result of work, there it is. All variables accounted for. What you don't like is that it isn't consistent. Welcome to the real world. There are many significant variables involved that you want to ignore to get your magic formula. Unfortunately, when you have so many variables that you can't really simulate in a lab setting, the only way to test is to actually do. That is why you can look at an engine curve all you want, but in the end it is just mental masturbation and you have to actually test the vehicle in "actual use" conditions to get actual performance.

We use the work curve for vehicle engine to know what we want for that vehicle regarding work (total work and speed of work) and it’s a multitude of personal desires and needs that is different for everyone. Trailering potential, acceleration potential. We are not talking about the same thing here. You don’t compare all the engines available in a vehicle segment your interested in?

This may actually be one of the foundational reasons behind the continued disagreement (besides the fact that a lot of the people arguing are wildly misconstruing what certain physical terms actually mean/measure). Those of us on this side of the line have no time for "potential". We want actual results. I honestly don't care what the "potential killing power" of a certain cartridge is. I know that 99% of modern centerfire cartridges are capable of killing the majority of animals I hunt. Based on that, my choices come down to picking a bullet that has the measure performance that I am looking for (using actual data, not calculated "potential") and choosing a cartridge that will deliver that bullet in the velocity window at my expected hunting distances. Everything else is immaterial.

We can’t compare this in bullets yet. We have decades of posts, pictures, and every imaginable personal interpretation of the result of work, that does not further us in the ability to compare and choose from better information.

Pictures and gel tests show the "result of work". Isn't that what you are looking for? They are absolute tests that cover all of the variables. They, more than any calculation, absolutely give us the ability to compare and chose. I would honestly like to know why you don't think that does.

We need to progress to modelling that work. Not continuing to study the result of work.

You don't need to model something that you already have the results for.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Rate of change or rate of work transfer will correlate with what we see in result of work.

There is no "work transfer". Work is done, period. It doesn't transfer. This is what I am talking about when I say that it is difficult to have a conversation when someone doesn't understand the basic facts of physics. It is also why these arguments tend to continue on because people think they know stuff that they really don't know.

When we can see the work profile and apply to all the kills(result of work) then we will know the types of curves we are looking for any goal at any range. We will be choosing from better info, objective info, things already known to work.

The result of work is known, from wound to death and it’s more than just amount of work but how far the work goes and how much is being pushed outward along that journey. It must get far enough to deliver death, not far enough and it’s a wound not a kill. We know what kills fast and what kills slower. Let’s get the curves, to see why, on numbers instead of pictures and subjective interpretations on the result of work.

So, we are starting to get to the basis of your argument. It seems to me that you have an underlying assumption that there are bullets that are being used by groups of hunters that don't penetrate enough and you want to prove that to them. My argument, and that of many of the others here, is that both gel tests, and real life test (i.e. these pictures that you continue to disbelieve) prove that the bullets in question have adequate penetration across a pretty large velocity window and shot angles to cause effective kills. Why do we need a calculation to "prove" anything?

Penetration is the be all end all goal, you have to get far enough 1st.

Penetration is not the be all end all goal. As already documented by multiple scientific and amateur studies, almost every single centerfire cartridge will provide adequate penetration when used within its effective velocity window and when using a bullet that is chosen for the application.
If we want to talk about the "end all goal" when talking hunting then it should be "accurate bullet placement" because that trumps all.

 

[HandgunHTR]

"ROC is often used when speaking about momentum, and it can generally be expressed as a ratio between a change in one variable relative to a corresponding change in another; graphically, the rate of change is represented by the slope of a line. The ROC is often illustrated by the Greek letter delta (Δ)."

We can ignore the 'often used when speaking about momentum' but the rest are the droids we are looking for.

Additional to that is we'd have the 'penetration coefficient' lol, in the SD and it's rate of change, there will be a direct relationship to curve/number on the penetration part alone which is SD and it's rate of change being measured would allow us to see that and how it applies to rate of work it puts out at each impact velocity. And maybe that's all we'd need to see to make it all comparable to each other?

So, you want to ignore momentum but then write an entire paragraph about how you want to figure out the rate of change of momentum. Got it.

 

[Pickettpuncher]

So, you want to ignore momentum but then write an entire paragraph about how you want to figure out the rate of change of momentum. Got it.

It’s much easier to argue with a fence post. At some point you have to realize it’s time to move on. Some people just can’t be helped.

 

[Thegman]

"If we can only put numbers to what we already know, we'll know"

I have a feeling that Stinky also entertains the fantasy that he can get get good with real women by using a blow-up doll...as long as he can somehow also apply numbers to his encounter.

 

[BigEd36]

"If we can only put numbers to what we already know, we'll know"

I have a feeling that Stinky also entertains the fantasy that he can get get good with real women by using a blow-up doll...as long as he can somehow also apply numbers to his encounter.

Now he'll really be concerned with penetration!

 

[Thegman]

Now he'll really be concerned with penetration!

Thank you! We'll be here all week!

 

[Stinky Coyote]

"If we can only put numbers to what we already know, we'll know"

That is the entire goal. To benefit all hunting across the globe. It is what we’re missing to make this topic objective and usable.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Some people just can’t be helped.

It’s more than just some. Most can’t even see the problem.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

So, you want to ignore momentum but then write an entire paragraph about how you want to figure out the rate of change of momentum. Got it.

Is momentum a unit of measure for work?

Do we use that language or unit currently?

Momentum is irrelevant lol.

Keep eye on prize, what is the problem?, what is the goal to make objective for all hunters across the globe?

Many of us don’t see either.

32 pages and counting.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Thank you! We'll be here all week!

Exactly what the drama queens want! You’re welcome.

Can’t stop thinking about me.

Should be thinking about the problem and the solution instead.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

See what 5811 did a page or two back?

Do more of that and less thinking about me and we’ll start getting out of this mud hole.

And he’s not the only member who’s addressed this(identified problem) but the OP and dagotto, and a few others asking great questions confirming the problem. Some like to, and can, ‘think’, instead of focusing on the drama.

It’s almost as if there’s a fomo on getting a good roast and people lining up for one, and others who can’t wait to watch. I got you.

Will that get us through next week and a couple more pages? ‘In this week’s episode of Yellowstone/Rokslide Chronicles....’

 

[Harvey_NW]

Most can’t even see the problem.

Because there isn't one. Frangible bullet over 1800fps make big wound, animal die fast. Mono or bonded not make as big wound, animal might not die as fast.

No more over engineering or mental masturbation. Case closed.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Because there isn't one. Frangible bullet over 1800fps make big wound, animal die fast. Mono or bonded not make as big wound, animal might not die as fast.

No more over engineering or mental masturbation. Case closed.

32 pages in only one post, on only one forum, in only one quarter, of only one year, disagrees. And it’s the year 2025 let’s not forget.

The problem isn’t knowing the result, it’s knowing why, and without the subjectivity of ‘frangible’, ‘mono’, and 1800 fps.

That’s simply your personal reduction of all the other opinions and or interpretations of your own experiences.

Not helpful to everyone, only somewhat helpful to some. You’re failing to see the ‘problem’.

 

[bmart2622]

That is the entire goal. To benefit all hunting across the globe. It is what we’re missing to make this topic objective and usable.

The 100s of pages of wound channels arent objective?!?! Maybe you don't know what objective means

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Careful boys, sun’s out, beers flowing while customizing (butchering) brand new rods for first time ever. This could get squirrely (the rods and the chat). Good ole plumbing skills coming in handy here extending these handles.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

The 100s of pages of wound channels arent objective?!?! Maybe you don't know what objective means

No.

They are subjective interpretations of the result of work. Not objective data on the work itself. Every post, every thread, proof.

 

[bmart2622]

So pictures documenting the size of the entrance, measuring the depth of penetration, width of wound channel, damage to internal organs, and size of exit, is not objective data?!?!!?