Energy Dump - A Self-Defining Term

[easyg]

Watermelons and water jugs are closed systems of inelactic liquid bound by inelastic materials. You can make similar "explosions" by punching these objects.

This is total BS.

Go ahead and punch a watermelon, a water jug, or a coconut as hard as you can....it will NOT explode the way it does when a large caliber rifle hits it.
Not even close to "similar".

Again, any volunteers to swallow a lit firecracker?

Or maybe stick one somewhere else (your sphincter is elastic, right)?

I'm guessing that we'll get no volunteers.
Why?
Because we all know that it would be painful and would probably damage us in someway.

 

[Riktoven]

You do understand that bullets don't 'explode' when they hit their target, right? There is no explosive charge like an M80 going off inside the human body, unless you are toting a 20mm handgun concealed.

And, no the water jug thing is not BS. Maybe you just punch like a girl. Grab a baseball bat and give it a try. Same result, broken container with the contents spread over 20+ feet. I was talking about them being shot with a handgun, not a rifle, but when talking about water jugs and watermelons the infomation gleaned is worth about as much (that being Jack $*it).

You are right about one thing though, I won't punch a coconut or take an M80 internally.

Ah yes, frantic rudeness, the last bastion of hope for someone on the wrong end of a debate.

 

[fletcher]

Besides, it's not a matter of elasticity...
It's a matter of energy transfer.
The bullet obviously transfers enough energy to explode a watermelon, and that same energy transferred to internal human organs must be damaging.

Elasticity allows for the absorption of energy without permanent deformation/failure. It's highly relevant to the issue being discussed.

Go to 1:55 in this video to see what I mean:
http://www.break.com/index/awesome_high_speed_compilation.html
See how elastic the gelatin is? It's able to stretch, leaving a relatively small final hole, instead of just shredding, shattering, or exploding.

 

[Riktoven]

You do understand that bullets don't 'explode' when they hit their target, right? There is no explosive charge like an M80 going off inside the human body, unless you are toting a 20mm handgun concealed.

And, no the water jug thing is not BS. Maybe you just punch like a girl. Grab a baseball bat and give it a try. Same result, broken container with the contents spread over 20+ feet. I was talking about them being shot with a handgun, not a rifle, but when talking about water jugs and watermelons the infomation gleaned is worth about as much (that being Jack $*it).

You are right about one thing though, I won't punch a coconut or take an M80 internally.

Ah yes, frantic rudeness, the last bastion of hope for someone on the wrong end of a debate.

 

[JesseL]

Energy transfer is hogwash? Please explain to me how you "...destroy the important parts of the body to break it..." *without* transferring energy from the bullet to those parts.

Ever seen a demonstration of someone with a sword cutting trough melons and such? Sometimes they can slice completely through the melon and still leave the two halves sitting in place, almost undisturbed. This is critical damage with minimal energy transfer.

Obviously the mechanics of terminal ballistics with bullets precludes this kind of action, because of the shape of the bullet. The point stands though, that it is entirely possible to cause massive amounts of tissue damage with minimal energy transfer. How else could a broadhead tipped arrow that carries less energy than a 22 rimfire cause enough damage to take down all but the very largest game?

The thing that really cracks me up is when people think that direct energy conversion can have some wounding effect. The only thing that a bullets kinetic energy can really be directly converted to is heat. Even if the total energy of a rifle bullet was converted to heat in the target it would result in less heat than it takes to warm a cup of coffee.

 

[fletcher]

The only thing that a bullets kinetic energy can really be directly converted to is heat.

The energy from a bullet is converted to small amounts of heat from friction, but it does primarily transfer the energy to its surroundings as kinetic energy. That's the principle on which ballistic pendulums work.

 

[mavracer]

OK for all of you who say kinetic energy transfer has nothing to do with wounding concider this the .45 230 hydro shock and .357 magnum 125 fed classic JHP both long concidered about equal and very sound stoppers ( many actually give the edge to the .357) but the 45 has more momentum 195500 to 181250 and will consistantly expand to a larger diameter and out penatrate the .357 through most mediums.IMHO the reason is kinetic energy transfer.I may be wrong but I don't think so.

 

[Kentak]

The thing that really cracks me up is when people think that direct energy conversion can have some wounding effect. The only thing that a bullets kinetic energy can really be directly converted to is heat. Even if the total energy of a rifle bullet was converted to heat in the target it would result in less heat than it takes to warm a cup of coffee.

Only really directly converted to heat? If that were true, a bullet would strike a target, stop, get very hot, and the target would walk away.

Come on, you know better. A moving bullet has kinetic energy. Any kind of energy has the ability to do work. Work, like punching through clothing or hide. Work, like penetrating into tissue. As that bullet moves forward, the fluids and tissue are flung out of the way. That takes energy. Some of the tissue may be ripped or torn. Bone may be splintered and fragments projected. ALL of that comes from the kinetic energy of the moving bullet. Yes, penetration is important--obviously. But energy helps penetration.

As for the broadhead arrow. I'm no bowhunter, but I've watched a few of the hunting programs regarding such. In almost every case, the animal bolts and runs away to bleed out elsewhere. Once in a while there will be a spinal cord hit or a heart or major artery hit. Then the animal goes down quickly.

I've also seen hunting vids where high powered rifles (high energy) drop animals where they stand, or after a few seconds of running.

There are many factors that make a good defensive handgun round. One of them is enough energy to perform as intended.

Why aren't we all choosing .22LR handguns for defense? They penetrate well with solid bullets.

K

 

[Riktoven]

I actually wouldn't be totally against using a .22 if they were made as cente-fire catridges (rimfires jam in automatics) and had enough energy to shatter any human bones they hit.

Kinetic energy of a moving bullet can only be dissipated in two ways. One is conversion into heat. The other is having an opposite force applied to it. When a moving bullet strikes anything (even air molecules) whatever it hits pushes back with equal energy (stopping the bullet). If the object being struck with the bullet can't supply that kind of force over the surface area of the bullet, it gives in some way (tissue tearing, bones breaking).

 

[Tx_Jim]

True enough - you must have sufficient kinetic energy for the projectile to penetrate tissue. What I'm talking about is the concept that the momentum of a handgun round will physically injure someone, as distinct from the trauma caused by the crushing and tearing from direct projectile contact.

A Randy Johnson fastball has way more kinetic energy than any handgun round. If "energy dump" is to be accepted as truth, then he should've killed several opponents by now.

Unless body tissue is actually torn, as occurs with a high velocity rifle round, the body shrugs off a handgun's temporary cavity pretty quickly. Think about the times you've whacked your thumb with a tool, or stubbed your toe on a door frame.

It smarts, true enough. However, your finger or toe was probably not permanently damaged, and you were able to walk it off. The amount of kinetic energy transmitted by a handgun round is probably not too far off those scenarios (although much more focused in its location and duration).

I am not a doctor but I would have to guess that blunt trauma is significant to some point. Blunt Trauma being caused by the rapid deceleration of an object during which it departs it’s remaining energy into another object, disprupting vital organ function. This concept can kill or disable a person and has nothing to do with penetration. The Randy Johnson example given above is a fallacy and all though it might not have happened yet, it is totally possible… theoretically anyway. Suppose Randy throws 100+ mph fast ball and hits someone in the head who is not wearing a helmet. The sudden deceleration of the ball, imparting its energy, against the cranium could in fact cause the brain to bounce around and bruise / hemorrhage. This could knock them down or cause death….and has absolutely nothing to due with penetration (if you don’t believe this to be true…please step up and be a guinea pig to test the theory). The problem is not with the theory of momentum or kinetic energy…the problem in regards to this theory relative to ballistics has everything to due with mass. For example, the biggest difference between the Randy example and a bullet is the mass difference between a bullet and the baseball. The baseball is able to impart more energy into the target because it weighs so much more and has a much larger impact area. Let’s use “less than lethal” means of defense as an example. Shot guns that shoot bean bags. A bean bag to the head given its velocity (from a shot gun) and mass would put most people lights out (knock down power), and has little to zero penetration…and could even be lethal given enough blunt trauma to critical areas. A bullet requires the tearing and cutting to be effective because of its mass…kinetic energy and momentum do play a part in it (however insignificant it might be). One last example, A bullet of any caliber, is fired and hits a rib and departs all of it’s energy into said rib. The rib flexes inward and thumps the heart. The heart is thumped hard enough to cause it to go into D-fib. I would assume this would stop the attacker fairly quickly but yet there was minimal penetration and only minor flesh wounds (I know this would only be one in a million shot).

Bottom line…I would not bet my life on hoping a single round (of any size) will be enough to knock down or stop and assailant and I would continue to put as many rounds in them as necessary to stop the attack.

 

[Smeg]

Why aren't we all choosing .22LR handguns for defense? They penetrate well with solid bullets.

(1), they are *not* good penetrators. Hit bone with them and they will stop. (2), they don't make a big enough hole (permanent cavity).

Hypothetically, if you were to go grizzly hunting, you would want to take along a weapon chambered for, I dunno, .458 SOCOM over a .308 any day.

Typical energy for a .308 rests in the neighborhood of 2600+ ft*lb's. The .458 SOCOM only has approximately 2110 ft*lb's on its best day with its 500 gr load. However, it has more than 50% more momentum than the .308, which makes it more suitable for maximizing a wound channel in big, dangerous critters.

Hell, I guess you could go bear hunting with a Glaser Safety Slug. I wouldn't recommend it, though. Funny how they market a non-lethal projectile with the "high energy" buzz words.

I'd like to see them market a non-lethal "high momentum" round.

 

[Soybomb]

While humans are not composed of fruit, they're not composed of rubber either!

Besides, it's not a matter of elasticity...
It's a matter of energy transfer.
The bullet obviously transfers enough energy to explode a watermelon, and that same energy transferred to internal human organs must be damaging.
Otherwise humans could swallow and detonate explosives without ill effect.

Anyone want to volunteer to swallow a lit M-80 firecracker?

It's no surprise that rifle rounds (rounds with more energy) generally kill humans more reliably than handgun rounds (rounds with less energy), all other things being equal (penetration, bullet deformation, etc...).

It's also worth noting that the bullet designers are not working tirelessly to develope rounds with LESS energy.

You're comparing a handgun wound to swallowing explosing?

You might be quite sure that the energy must be damaging but I would encourage you to read the previously linked to handgun wounding document at http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm Its very readable and has many citiations from doctor's papers in ballistic jornals that refute what you're imagining andexplain why. No matter how cool exploding melons and water jugs are, that huge temporary cavity doesn't ensure a good wound.

 

[easyg]

You do understand that bullets don't 'explode' when they hit their target, right?

Maybe you should re-read my post and try to comprehend it this time...
The melon exploded, not the bullet.
Got it?

And, no the water jug thing is not BS. Maybe you just punch like a girl. Grab a baseball bat and give it a try. Same result, broken container with the contents spread over 20+ feet. I was talking about them being shot with a handgun, not a rifle, but when talking about water jugs and watermelons the infomation gleaned is worth about as much (that being Jack $*it).

Check out this video....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...68&start=30&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Now show me someone, exploding a watermelon just like in the video, with their fist or even a baseball bat.

No way, no how!

 

[easyg]

No matter how cool exploding melons and water jugs are, that huge temporary cavity doesn't ensure a good wound.

So you'll swallow a firecracker then?

Come'on, it doesn't "ensure a good wound", so you have nothing to fear.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Kinetic energy is the energy that a body possesses as a result of its motion. It is formally defined as the work needed to accelerate a body from rest to its current velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. Negative work of the same magnitude would be required to return the body to a state of rest from that velocity.

Under certain assumptions, this work (and thus the kinetic energy) is equal to:

E=1/2 m x v squared.

where m is the object's mass and v is the object's speed.

So I say again, if your talking about KENETIC ENERGY killing you don't even have a clue what you are talking about. A BULLET with a higher kenetic energy is capable of doing more work. This is simple physics. What you are shooting makes no difference the physics is the same. Two bullets, equal diameter, penetrating the same depth, the one with the higher "kenetic energy" is capable of doing more work and will be more effective as a defensive round. There is NO evidence to contradict this. The FBI report simply stated that strech cavity and bruising and stretching tissue is not a RELIABLE means of stopping and therefore discounted it in favor of reliable penetration. This was years ago. Modern bullets can match or exceed the penetration requirements of the FBI while still delivering a LOT of KE to the target which is a GOOD thing. For those who are constantly stuck on the FBI report I would note the top rounds cited by the FBI were the powerful 10mms and the 145gr Sivertip .357 magnums.
I would wager that no one in this discussion is using either of those rounds. Additionally, these two rounds shared one common factor. They were the rounds with the most KENETIC ENERGY. Booyah.

Note: To be intellectually honest they might of not been "the" highest but they were definitely among the highest.

 

[fletcher]

Two bullets, equal diameter, penetrating the same depth, the one with the higher "kenetic energy" is capable of doing more work and will be more effective as a defensive round. There is NO evidence to contradict this.

Pretty much sums it all up right there.

 

[Kentak]

Smeg,

I was *not* advocating .22LR for defensive use. I was making a point that penetration can be obtained by a low energy round, like the .22LR, but one that is recognized as a poor stopper. The point being that penetration alone is not a reliable indicator of stopping ability. Obviously, *any* round can stop if the round hits and damages the heart, major blood vessel, or CNS.

A .223 Rem round is the same diameter as the .22LR, with a *little* more mass, at least three times as much velocity, and about ten times more energy. No one doubts a .223 is a much better stopper than the .22LR.

K

 

[Kentak]

Two bullets, equal diameter, penetrating the same depth, the one with the higher "kenetic energy" is capable of doing more work and will be more effective as a defensive round. There is NO evidence to contradict this.

That's, effectively, the point I've been making all along.

K

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Two bullets, equal diameter, penetrating the same depth, the one with the higher "kenetic energy" is capable of doing more work and will be more effective as a defensive round. There is NO evidence to contradict this.

What evidence is there to support this statement with respect to the small amounts of kinetic energy involved with handgun rounds?

Also, if the bullets are the same, and penetrate the same depth, then would they not have to have had the same kinetic energy when they hit the target?

 

[Riktoven]

How much work do you need to do? A bullet traveling along a horizontal path can only crush tissue along that horizontal path. Hollowpoints increase the diameter of that line of travel, and surely deflect some of that energy along other vectors. However, until you can find a way to focus that energy at a right angle to the bullet's line of travel after penetrating, isn't that extra energy just going to be wasted after the bullet exits?

Unless the bullet yaws quickly there won't be much energy directed along vectors other than the bullets line of travel. No 'pressure wave' or whatever you call it. I can't imagine the possibility of this happening trumping using a bigger slower round or the same size round with a greater capacity, either of which would have less recoil to slow down follow-up shots. A fragmenting bullet would help here. There is a reason why most IEDs have shrapnel built in.

The 'pressure wave' from handgun ammunition, according to the FBI at least, isn't enough to permanently damage most tissue. I will concede that it could (should?) cause more pain, and that COULD be a factor in stopping a fight. Just the same, I doubt I could shoot a full bore 10mm or any magnum round half as fast as a nice slow 230gr .45 or 147gr 9mm. Until one of you guys invents a bullet who's energy dump will CONSISTENTLY drop someone with the first shot, I'm gonna stick to the good old 'shoot em fast and until they stop' line of thinking. If 5.56x45mm is getting mixed reviews at over 1200 ft.lbs. energy, I think you need to focus on a new bullet design

 

[fletcher]

How much work do you need to do? A bullet traveling along a horizontal path can only crush tissue along that horizontal path.

Sort of. Any pressure that builds up from the displacement of matter (it will tear the material ahead of the bullet, not crush - not until the very end at least) will transfer energy in all directions. If I understand you correctly, there's plenty of "pressure wave", look at high-speed video of bullets in gelatin. Large displacements on a path perpendicular to that of the bullet are quite visible.

There is a reason why most IEDs have shrapnel built in.

I think it's for a different reason. An explosion of gas alone won't send things flying through your organs. There needs to be something present (added shrapnel) to really kill.

The 'pressure wave' from handgun ammunition, according to the FBI at least, isn't enough to permanently damage most tissue.

I won't argue that.


Two such high-speed videos (may need to right click => save as):
http://blueridgearmory.com/media/9mm_highspeed.mpg
http://blueridgearmory.com/media/45_highspeed.mpg

 

[Kentak]

What evidence is there to support this statement with respect to the small amounts of kinetic energy involved with handgun rounds?

9mm and .357 Mag. Same diameter, but the Mag has higher energy. Which one is more destructive and has better stopping ability?

Also, if the bullets are the same, and penetrate the same depth, then would they not have to have had the same kinetic energy when they hit the target?

Not necessarily. See www.brassfetcher.com for extensive gelatin results. A bullet's KE is shed by the resistance of penetration, but also by transfer of momentum to tissue flung out of it's path in creating the temporary and permanent wound cavity.

K

 

[Kentak]

interesting reading here, which is some sort of a military tutorial for medical personnel. It supports the significant role of kinetic energy in terminal ballistics. Go down the page a short ways to get the germane part about wounding.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/8996/s3opstx/slp/woundballistics.htm

K

 

[Kentak]

No 'pressure wave' or whatever you call it.

Are you saying there is no pressure wave that travels through tissue laterally to the path of the bullet?

K

 

[Lone_Gunman]

9mm and .357 Mag. Same diameter, but the Mag has higher energy. Which one is more destructive and has better stopping ability?

Do you have data regarding 9mm FMJ versus 357 magnum FMJ's?

Because that is the only way to fairly compare what you are talking about, and the only way to have wound channels the same diameter. If you are talking about bullets that deform to any degree such as JHP or JSP, I would contend that the 357 magnum is a better stopper because it expands better. Most of the stopping data I have seen regarding 357 magnum is in reference to hollowpoints.