08-09-2011, 05:53 PM
There is no problem with the physics. It does not lie, but it has many aspects, and not all (namely energy) are proportional to LETHALITY.
And I"m not talking about refinements or marginal differences, but of completely different SCALES. For example: A very powerfull crossbow will shoot a 27gram bolt at 100m/s. It will completely penetrate an elk, cutting two 1" channels all the way. All this with "only" 135J.
A 357mag has ROUGHLY the same lethality (probably less), but with 6 times more energy! Crossbow is a practical and common hunting tool for elks and bears, while 357mag is considered marginal for deer.
0.22 will not kill an elk, and is only good for hunting varmints. But it has TWICE the energy of the bolt. How can we say that energy accounts for most of the damage?
I can't give a definitive formula for "deadliness". I think there are very different mechanisms and physical factors. Given 2 IDENTICAL projectiles, the more energetic will usualy be deadlier. But energy figures are useless when comparing bullets and arrows.
Therefore, if the bolt I described above is comparable (lethality wise) to a 357mag, than your arrow, which is faster and way heavier, is by FAR more potent (thou you cant be twice more dead...)
I"m not critisizing your work. on the contrary. I think your creation is more potent than you credit it and yourself for.
BTW, I mentioned "lethality" several times. But on the battlefield, this is NOT an issue. What you realy want is to INCAPACITATE the enemy soldier. It doesn't matter if he dies quickly (from a bullet), slowly (from an arrow) or not at all, as long as he cant fight.
And I"m not talking about refinements or marginal differences, but of completely different SCALES. For example: A very powerfull crossbow will shoot a 27gram bolt at 100m/s. It will completely penetrate an elk, cutting two 1" channels all the way. All this with "only" 135J.
A 357mag has ROUGHLY the same lethality (probably less), but with 6 times more energy! Crossbow is a practical and common hunting tool for elks and bears, while 357mag is considered marginal for deer.
0.22 will not kill an elk, and is only good for hunting varmints. But it has TWICE the energy of the bolt. How can we say that energy accounts for most of the damage?
I can't give a definitive formula for "deadliness". I think there are very different mechanisms and physical factors. Given 2 IDENTICAL projectiles, the more energetic will usualy be deadlier. But energy figures are useless when comparing bullets and arrows.
Therefore, if the bolt I described above is comparable (lethality wise) to a 357mag, than your arrow, which is faster and way heavier, is by FAR more potent (thou you cant be twice more dead...)
I"m not critisizing your work. on the contrary. I think your creation is more potent than you credit it and yourself for.
BTW, I mentioned "lethality" several times. But on the battlefield, this is NOT an issue. What you realy want is to INCAPACITATE the enemy soldier. It doesn't matter if he dies quickly (from a bullet), slowly (from an arrow) or not at all, as long as he cant fight.
Regards, Yuv.
