View Single Post
December 12, 2012, 05:53 PM   #48
Frank Ettin
Staff

Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfmedic
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Frank Ettin ...All the material I cited and quoted very clearly relates to handgun rounds.
No it wasnt - if it was I wouldnt have posted it...
The only quotations in my post (post 21) in any way addressing "shock effect" were the three from the book In Defense of Self and Others. The first, a quote from Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio refers specifically to, "...low velocity missles, e. g., pistol bullets...." The second refers specifically to, "...a handgun bullet...." And the third in context is clearly a continuation of the discussion from which the first two quotes were taken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfmedic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Quote:
 Originally Posted by sfmedic ...The energy imparted by the bullet has to abide by the law of energy E=MC2 in the world of ballistic energy mass isnt the big dog on the block its Speed because the speed is squared...
[1] And that equation has absolutely nothing to do with the subject we are discussing, nor does it describe ballistic energy.

[2] That equation is useful do describe the energy produced in nuclear reactions when a small amount of matter is lost and is converted to energy.

[3] The factor "c" is not speed. It is rather the speed of light (roughly 186,000 miles/second). The speed of light is a common constant in many equations of physics, and the letter "c" is commonly used in physics equations to refer to the speed of light.
I used that as a general example that evryone knew I dont think the Ek=1/2mv2 would have been as widely known ...
[1] So on one hand you have claimed in other posts to be an instructor, yet on the other hand you're willing to attempt to illustrate a point you're trying to make with a completely incorrect (for the purpose) and irrelevant equation, simply because you think people will recognize it? I would have expected someone who has experience as an instructor to use the proper equation and offer a brief explanation of what it means.

[2] Familiarity with the equation E=mc2 doesn't make that equation in any way applicable to the subject under discussion. Among other things, it has nothing to do with kinetic energy as expressed by E=1/2mv2.

[3] And how is E=mc2 a "general example"? It is a very specific equation addressing a very specific issue, and has nothing to do with kinetic energy.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sfmedic ...- but it still holds that you get more energy from the speed side of the column as opposed to the size side...
No, as a matter of fact the equation E=mc2 does not hold anything of the sort.

[1] It has nothing to do with the speed of anything. Matter (mass), for the purposes of that equation, could be at rest or in motion, but if in motion, the speed or velocity of the matter in not accounted for in the equation. The only speed referenced in the equation is the constant, "c", the speed of light.

[2] What the equation E=mc2 does hold is that if an amount of matter is converted to energy in a nuclear reaction (or similar process, e. g., the mutual annihilation of an electronic and positron with the resultant release of energy in the form of gamma radiation) the amount of energy thus produced would be equal to the mass of the matter converted to energy multiplied by the square of the speed of light.

[3] In any case the reference to "size side" is inaccurate. The issue is mass, not size.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Page generated in 0.04215 seconds with 7 queries