Work cannot be performed without energy. Can't be done.
>>edited today to add>> I Can't believe someone ELSE said THAT ^^^^^
I'm in bed now, tomorrow I'll post an answer from one of our members who also knows math & physics.
Abbreviated paraphrase for now. It takes Energy Transfer and Momentum to accomplish what we need/ look for
in efficiently killing an animal.
Those SAME things (energy transfer & momentum) are integral using archery, even tho the FPE numbers aren't close.
Good Night for now. Back tomorrow.
Okay - now is 'tomorrow' from last night. Please read ALL of the following quotes. The 'following' comes from "ASK the Gunwirters" forum, Killing versus Stopping thread--- P 29.
[quote=jwp475]
A bullet impact is an inelastic collision, energy is not conserved, momentum is conserved. In an elastic collision both energy and momentum is conserved. This is fact not theory. [quote=jwp475]
This is correct regarding collisions,[/b] but it is important to note that although kinetic energy is not conserved in inelastic collisions, there is still an energy transfer from one object to another. In fact, an object can only have measurable momentum if it also has kinetic energy.[b] When you mentioned that a wound channel is produced by direct applied force, this is indirectly saying that there is an energy transfer, since change in kinetic energy is equal to the force applied, integrated over the displacement of the tissue. Likewise, the change in momentum of the tissue is equal to the force applied, integrated over the time of interaction.
[/b]So there is no question that when a bullet strikes, there is a transfer of momentum, kinetic energy, and that there is a force applied which is responsible for these changes in the tissue.[b] I think the reason that so many of us have become hyper-sensitive to the mere mention of the word "energy", is because of all the focus and emphasis that for decades was placed on energy as a metric of killing effectiveness, using distorted mechanisms and quantified thresholds. [/b]People used kinetic energy all wrong in trying to determine killing power, and now we can't stand when somebody brings it up.[b]Kind of like our reaction to an over-played song coming on the radio (even if we liked the song when it was originally released).
Excellent points, gentlemen. It's apparent you both paid attention in physics class.
M70 Guy -- We are correct ! I have known for a long time that E is 'integral' to accomplish work-- but didn't have the math/physics background to express it accurately.
THANKS Again to "Jordan Smith"
The analogy of 'arrows' killing to 'bullets' is actually Apples/Oranges
Simply consider the looks of 'bullets', NOW consider the looks of hunting 'arrows heads'. IF bullets were shaped like arrow heads' and could be propelled fast enuff to produce a reasonable trajectory, they would NOT have to weigh AS MUCH to kill dramatically. The diff is NOT in K E, it is in SHAPE and SHARPNESS of the projectile.
Jerry
