Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Can some one explain energy to me please?

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by Eric F, Sep 3, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Eric F

    Eric F Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,934
    I was running some figures for my 50-90 sharps on some web based calculators by pluging in velocity and bullet weight to get a energy value. All fine and dandy then I looked at some boxes of other ammo I have laying around and foung 3 boxes of the same chambering with 3 diffrent bullets types but they hade the same weight and velocity but the energy values were way diffrent.

    Is energy dependant on bullet type? Do diffrent manufacturers use diffrent formula to develop a energy value? What gives?
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2009
  2. lykoris

    lykoris Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    435
    W= weight in grains
    V= velocity in feet per second

    W x V x V(i.e. velocity squared) = a given number, say Y

    divide Y by 450240 and you get the fpe value


    so for example 40 grain bullet travelling at 1050 fps

    would have a value of

    40 x 1050 x 1050 = 44100000/450240 = 97.95 fpe (rounded up) or multiply by 1.3 to get the value in Joules
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2009
  3. lykoris

    lykoris Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    435
    by fpe I mean ft-lbf - foot pound force
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2009
  4. Eric F

    Eric F Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,934
    So then how can 3 diffrent manufacturers advertise the same bullet weight and same velocity but have diffrent energy values?
     
  5. deadin

    deadin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,103
    Location:
    Ocean Shores, WA
    By having a faulty calculator?? By creating their own laws of physics??
    Check and see if they are listing the energy as Muzzle Energy, 100 yard energy or other different ranges.

    However, the one I like the most is "Creative Marketing":eek::D
     
  6. lykoris

    lykoris Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    435
    People get it wrong. Lyman has the value as 450400 rather than 450240, maybe the former is easier to remember than the latter ?

    they also use ft/lbs which from my understanding is incorrect it should be fpe or ft-lbf....I didn't know (used to use ft/lbs all the time) until I read a thread on a British shooting forum with engineers arguing over the correct symbol and how the 'correct' symbol has been replaced with an incorrect one.

    I must reread it again or even post it up here.
     
  7. lykoris

    lykoris Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    435
  8. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    ft/lb is the American term that has been the accepted norm in expressing muzzle energy for as long as I can remember.
    What the British airgunners want to call it is bloody well their own business.

    Now, what puzzles me is torque.

    From the time I was a teenager in the 50's and first became interested in cars and motorcycles, engine torque was given in ft/lb's.

    Now I see in the latest car & bike mags that it has become lb/ft.

    What's up with that?

    As to the OP's question?
    Bullet shape has no bearing at all on muzzle energy.
    It has a large bearing on downrange or retained energy however.
    But it is not used in the equation to figure it.

    rc
     
  9. lykoris

    lykoris Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    435
    it is an imperial measure so I would presume they know what they are talking about....being English and all.

    there is a firearms section to that forum also and whether you are talking about a 16 grain pellet or 168 grain berger bullet, muzzle energy is muzzle energy. No need to knock airguns.

    I think the problem is the / sign and lack of f...although I believe it can be written ft-lb

    ft/lb vs ft-lbf to describe foot pound force.

    perhaps it's all semantics :D
     
  10. Steve C

    Steve C Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,673
    Energy is Mass x Velocity squared. ftlb or FtLbf is correct as used. Reason being is that a pound (lb). is not a measure of mass but a measure of weight or actually force which is a measure of gravitational force on a unit of mass. In the English system of measurement the term for a unit of mass is called a Slug. A Slug is the unit of mass that is accelerated at the rate of one foot per second per second when acted on by a force of one pound weight. The Lbf just indicates that the lbs are units of force.

    The constant 450240 of the equation in the 1st responding post converts grains (avoirdupois weight) to pounds. If one does all the math using all the proper units of measurement, most units cancel oul leaving Feet x Pound or foot pounds (FtLbs) as the remaining unit of measurement.

    The physics definition of torque is "the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force." The simple explanation is its the rotating or twisting force, in a simple model like a wrench the torque is calculated by multiplying he distance in ft. between the center of the bolt being turned and the point where the force is being applied by the lbs of force applied , thus ftlb of torque.
     
  11. lykoris

    lykoris Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    435
    this might be helpful also (I'm no engineer though)

    McGraw Hill - 2nd edition

    Dictionary of Engineering

    foot-pound
    foot-poundal

    [​IMG]
     
  12. DBR

    DBR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,071
    Location:
    Vermont
    Also, to confuse things further:

    FPE (foot pounds of energy) is the ability to do work. In the case of a bullet; crush tissue, expand the bullet etc.

    Foot pounds of torque is a static force - like a weight on a lever.
     
  13. rfwobbly

    rfwobbly Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,925
    Location:
    Cornelia, GA
    Torque is nothing more than force acting at a distance. (The only gotcha is that the distance is always measured on a line through the center of rotation to a point where the force is "normal" (90 degrees) to the line.)

    Being a simple product of multiplication, we all realize that 2x3 gives the same answer as 3x2. As go the digits, so go the units. Therefore "foot-lbs" is just as correct as "lb-feet", because both mean "pounds multiplied by feet".

    The one thing it cannot be is "lb/ft", because that would mean "pounds divided by feet" or "pounds per feet", which is a decidedly different beast.
     
  14. clem

    clem Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    551
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
    Energy is what my grand daughters have, and what I don't have.:)
     
  15. Mal H

    Mal H Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    17,216
    Location:
    Somewhere in the woods of Northern VA
    Eric - what were the 3 energy values given on the 3 different ammo boxes, and what were the bullet weights and velocities listed?

    Those values are both correct. :) It depends on where on the earth the person using the formula lives!

    That factor is simply derived from the gravitation constant applied to the weight (mass) of the bullet when converted from grains to pounds, i.e., 2*g*7000. It is used only to make the math easier. The factor is about 450240 at 40 degrees latitude, and about 450400 at 45 degrees lat. It will be different at the equator than it is at the north pole. Different, but never wrong. Any factor from 450000 to 450600 won't make much difference in the calculated ft-lb of energy for most of North America. IOW, don't worry too much about that factor.
     
  16. Remo-99

    Remo-99 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    S32-E152 Hunter Valley
    Possibly the velocities stated on the boxes is just an approximate or rounded off figure and maybe the muzzle energy was calculated from actual velocities.

    As previously said bullet shape/type doesn't alter energy stats at the muzzle, just velocities at differing ranges etc.(which in effect will change the energy stats at those ranges.)
     
  17. don

    don Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Messages:
    267
    Location:
    Nashville
    The correct formular for kinetic energy is 1/2 mxvxv and the correct units are ft-lbs in the english system. Torque has already been defined but the correct units are lb-ft again in the english system. Source: Modern College Physics.
     
  18. Eric F

    Eric F Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,934
    I will have to get back home and look again. I will try to post again tomorrow.
     
  19. lykoris

    lykoris Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    435
    that's very interesting Mal, thanks for explaining it to me as I thought it was a fixed constant in the equation but your explanation makes sense.

    the great thing about forums is the input on things from members more knowledgeable than myself and learning something new
     
  20. SSN Vet

    SSN Vet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,775
    Location:
    The Dark Side of the Moon
    Ahhhhhhhh!

    not the pound force, pound mass, slug lecture again.....

    all consequences of a system of measurement developed before Isaac Newton, when people didn't grasp the difference between mass and weight.

    and once again illustrating how SI (commonly refered to as metric) is such a superior system.
     
  21. TimRB

    TimRB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    922
    Location:
    CA
    "and once again illustrating how SI (commonly refered to as metric) is such a superior system."

    Right up until the point that people use mass units for force.

    Tim
     
  22. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    22,340
    Well, if they can't tell a kilogram from a Newton, that is not my fault.

    But the metric system is French, so why do we bother with it? Everybody makes fun of all other things French.

    Thomas Jefferson devised an American decimal system of weights and measures to go along with decimal money, but it did not catch on.
     
  23. don

    don Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Messages:
    267
    Location:
    Nashville
    That factor is simply derived from the gravitation constant applied to the weight (mass) of the bullet when converted from grains to pounds, i.e., 2*g*7000. It is used only to make the math easier. The factor is about 450240 at 40 degrees latitude, and about 450400 at 45 degrees lat. It will be different at the equator than it is at the north pole. Different, but never wrong. Any factor from 450000 to 450600 won't make much difference in the calculated ft-lb of energy for most of North America. IOW, don't worry too much about that factor.
    Please explain how the equator affects energy. The formular doesn't even use weight. It uses mass and velocity. Mass doesn't change regardless of where it is. Neither does velocity.
     
  24. Spencer Hart

    Spencer Hart Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    29
    Location:
    Moscow, TN
    my head hurts after reading this:neener:
     
  25. don

    don Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Messages:
    267
    Location:
    Nashville
    Mal H. I did not read your post correctly. My bad. You wrote about the factor and not the energy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page