I'm finally back here

Hello Gwynedd,

I think I ALMOST understand what you are describing, but there are a couple of minor nits for me to pick at:
There is a misplaced decimal point for 44 mm conversion to meters.
Einstein's E=MC^2 equation really has nothing to do with kinetic energy. It is a representation of the amount of energy contained in matter. The point here isn't how fast the object is going but rather what amount of energy to be released by turning the matter completely into energy. For a Fusion reaction of Hydrogen into Helium, a couple electrons and positrons are annihilated and we get a (bomb or sun) load of energy.

Hi Johnny,

My quest is usually for accuracy and consistency in firearms and taking out the goofies in pretty much conventional firearms. I don't hardly own any guns big enough to brag about.

- Ivan.
 
The decimal point point is right. My fingers put things down that my brain didn't say, and then I read them and take them for what I meant.
The Einstein reference is not incorrect. All energy is either mass and motion or force and distance. Physicists are still resolving all the intricacies, but there is no matter that is motionless or massless and none that have no forces associated with them. That it applies to conversion of matter to energy is only a terminal boundary condition of the energy.

Ivan said:
Hello Gwynedd,

I think I ALMOST understand what you are describing, but there are a couple of minor nits for me to pick at:
There is a misplaced decimal point for 44 mm conversion to meters.
Einstein's E=MC^2 equation really has nothing to do with kinetic energy. It is a representation of the amount of energy contained in matter. The point here isn't how fast the object is going but rather what amount of energy to be released by turning the matter completely into energy. For a Fusion reaction of Hydrogen into Helium, a couple electrons and positrons are annihilated and we get a (bomb or sun) load of energy.
- Ivan.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Gwynedd,

I am not disputing your description. I am just disputing that e=mc^2 has a component in the equation that describes kinetic energy.

- Ivan.
 
Energy

~S~ All,

Energy is the common thread that ran through both equations and if I am not mistaken it is measured in "Joules" and that is why there can be no body armor that works.

"WE (Gun People) ", is a general term for lets say "Rednecks" or "Guys" or whatever. The Bigger the bullet better the weapon. It is a Freud thing. Did not mean You and I.

Later,

J:male:
 
Hello Johnny,

There is a big difference between projectiles moving at speeds describable by Newtonian mechanics and stuff moving at relativistic speeds. I thought that we were discussing pure Newtonian stuff until very recently.

I'm not taking offense from anything anyone has posted here. I just may have a slightly different philosophy than you do about sizes of guns. I prefer to use things I can actually afford to shoot. I prefer not to deal with rifles that cost as much in barrel life to shoot as they do in ammunition. I figure to rebarrel a rifle should be around $300 to $500. For simplicity's sake, if the barrel life were less than 500 rounds and each round cost $1, it would cost as much in barrel life as in ammunition. Personally I prefer stuff whose barrel life is measured in thousands of rounds. I also am not fond of getting the stuffing knocked out of me by a heavy rifle. I have shot a .50 Cal Browning that didn't kick all that badly. I have also shot a .338 Winchester that just plain hurt. No fun in that one. With pistols, I try to stay with rounds that I can shoot at least 50-100 rounds without hurting. A full power .44 Magnum is about my limit there. I know a fellow who has a .460 Weatherby Magnum. I don't think he shoots it very much and I am SURE (from personal observation) that he can't hit a thing with it.

- Ivan.
 
Clarification

~S~ Ivan,

I do not reload and never have. I prefer a bolt action .22 mag. rifle and a two shot pistol. One round for two weapons. They are very cost efficient and a good choice as I see it. I have been working on a coil gun lately and the the equations involved are based on the same Newtonian laws, but the "Joules" are the common thread that runs through Newton and Einstein's theories.

The energy is caused by gun power vaporising at enormous rates forcing the projectile out of the confined space, (chamber/shell casing) and out the barrel of the weapon. Bolt action weapons are slightly better then automatic weapons but the recoil is greater. You reload shells, do you use stick or powder?

In coil guns the excellent magnetic energy. Electricity, thousands of volts, creates a magnetic field and the projectile is drawn to the center of the field. The field has collapsed before the projectile can reach the center. As the projectile passes it trigger a second field farther down the barrel and the speed is jumped, because it is no longer at rest and is now in motion. This can be repeated to the point that one of two things can happen. It vaporizes (I doubt I could do that, but it could happen), or it reaches the speed of light (do not believe that either). Most believe it could go nuclear. "Supper Collider" E=MC^2

Newton to Einstein.

My gun will not be that long.

j
 
Hello Johnny,

I have a friend at the Collider / Detector Facility (CDF) at Fermilab in Chicago. She gave me a pretty good tour and explanation of how things worked. Their setup is about 4-6 miles in circumference under a canal for cooling and can accelerate particles to a very high portion of the speed of light. They collide particles in the hope of creating temporary subatomic particles that may exist only for very short times.

Yes, energy can be measured in Joules, but sometimes kilowatts is a more apropriate unit.

Somehow I don't think your setup is going to be capable of that, but really high speed (several thousand fps) projectiles are still interesting.

A .22 Magnum is a pretty odd cartridge selection. I don't see those as being particularly inexpensive though.

Regarding reloading, I use a variety of smokeless propellants:
Stick Powders:
IMR 3031
IMR 4064
IMR 4895

Spherical Powders:
Winchester 748
Winchester 231
Winchester 296

Flat Disc / Cylinder Powders:
Alliant BlueDot
Alliant 2400
Alliant Unique

For Black powder, I usta use a fair amount of FFFg and FFg. I don't think I have any more of either. This list doesn't cover all of the stuff I have used, but is a pretty good representation.

- Ivan.
 
I really hate to do this "I'm right, you're wrong" thing. It always creates hurt feelings, and I try to avoid that.
May I please just refer you to a well constructed debate on this subject among an anonymous contributor, a PhD candidate at MIT and a PhD research scientist?
http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae121.cfm
I will let you draw your own conclusions about whether a kinetic energy reference is appropriate.

Ivan said:
Hi Gwynedd,

I am not disputing your description. I am just disputing that e=mc^2 has a component in the equation that describes kinetic energy.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

It has been a long, difficult 5 day work week yesterday and today. Everything had to get done before the holidays were here. I'm pretty tired, so Happy Thanksgiving everyone. See you later.
 
Hello Gwynedd,

As far as I am concerned, I don't take offense at the "I'm right, You're wrong" thing. Thanks for the reference.

Let me state for the record: If I understand the discussion correctly:
Gwynedd is right and I'm wrong!

Please correct if my interpretation is incorrect here: The mass in this equation is not a constant. It changes as to the velocity of the object. The change does not become significant until relativistic speeds are reached, but is enough to account for the increase in kinetic energy normally calculated in the Newtonian world as 1/2*m*v^2.

Happy Thanksgiving!
- Ivan.
 
Ivan,
Yes that is exactly what it means. And thanks. I was dreading looking confrontational about this. I really just your typical teacher type.
In fact I am such a nerd that I watched hours of History Channel's The Universe last night while getting things ready for Thanksgiving. It was mostly about topics related to this.
Now I just need someone to explain to me about muons. They are sub-atomic particles that only travel faster than light and have to slow down to reach light speed. According to the Lorentz equation, time becomes an imaginary number for them :jawdrop:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html

Ivan said:
Hello Gwynedd,

As far as I am concerned, I don't take offense at the "I'm right, You're wrong" thing. Thanks for the reference.

Let me state for the record: If I understand the discussion correctly:
Gwynedd is right and I'm wrong!

Please correct if my interpretation is incorrect here: The mass in this equation is not a constant. It changes as to the velocity of the object. The change does not become significant until relativistic speeds are reached, but is enough to account for the increase in kinetic energy normally calculated in the Newtonian world as 1/2*m*v^2.

Happy Thanksgiving!
- Ivan.
Click to expand...
 
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.

Happy, safe, loving and memorable Thanksgiving to you and everyone here.
To those whose nation doesn't celebrate Thanksgiving or celebrates it at a different time, celebrate with us too!

Gwyn


Ivan said:
Hello Gwynedd,

Happy Thanksgiving!
- Ivan.
Click to expand...
 
Morons

~S~ G,

I know all about morons, I is one.

Happy Thanks giving all.

J:isadizzy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top