SpudFiles

SpudBlaster15 wrote:I have used that method (minus the cinnamon oil), and I find it to be a waste of time, as the resulting gel is identical to the stuff made using my much simpler method.

oh ok,just asking though have you tested them both to compare the density? just wondering.Ive also heard it starts to smell after a while is this true??

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras nec placerat erat. Vivamus dapibus egestas nunc, at eleifend neque. Suspendisse potenti. Sed dictum lacus eu nisl pretium vehicula. Ut faucibus hendrerit nisi. Integer ultricies orci eu ultrices malesuada. Fusce id mauris risus. Suspendisse finibus ligula et nisl rutrum efficitur. Vestibulum posuere erat pellentesque ornare venenatis. Integer commodo fermentum tortor in pharetra. Proin scelerisque consectetur posuere. Vestibulum molestie augue ac nibh feugiat scelerisque. Sed aliquet a nunc in mattis.

i mixed up a batch, and using cold water it was the consistensy of apple sauce. only when i nuked it in the microwave for 30 seconds did it become more liquidy, and now its in the fridge hardening.

I know this sounds dumb but can you measure fps with this?

You'd have to know the mass of the projectile, among other things, to find the velocity. (I think)

fps, um i would say it is possible, but you would need the exact portion of water and gelatine every time. And you would have to do some experimenting with a chronograph to figure how many fps is per inch of penetration. Good idea though.

FeLeX wrote:I know this sounds dumb but can you measure fps with this?

If you had identical projectiles which didn't deform at all fired into a gelatine block that was always 100% consistent in mixture and at the same temperature every time you might after long calculations get an approximate velocity figure, but honestly, this is so much easier.

So the what can you do with balistics gel then?

So the what can you do with balistics gel then?

Evaluate the hypothetical penetration your projectiles would have through soft living tissue.

So ballistics gel is the closest thing to living tissue?

FeLeX wrote:So ballistics gel is the closest thing to living tissue?

Ballistics gel cannot accurately represent the effect of a bullet on all tissues and factor in bone. What it can do, is give an approximation of the amount of soft tissue penetration given that the round does not pierce bone. Such as if someone were to shoot you, just an example don't freak out, in the abdomen. The ballistics gel would give a good idea how much a round would penetrate, without actually having to shoot you.

So say you shoot an M82 A-1 packing a .50 BMG at a block of ballistics gel that's two feet long, and you find the round embedded in the wall behind it. Chances are, it's going to go in and out of a person, or animal, quite easily.

Thing is, the skin is tougher than soft internal tissues, so just because you can shoot a BB at a block of gel and it pierces, doesn't mean it would actually penetrate a person's skin.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras nec placerat erat. Vivamus dapibus egestas nunc, at eleifend neque. Suspendisse potenti. Sed dictum lacus eu nisl pretium vehicula. Ut faucibus hendrerit nisi. Integer ultricies orci eu ultrices malesuada. Fusce id mauris risus. Suspendisse finibus ligula et nisl rutrum efficitur. Vestibulum posuere erat pellentesque ornare venenatis. Integer commodo fermentum tortor in pharetra. Proin scelerisque consectetur posuere. Vestibulum molestie augue ac nibh feugiat scelerisque. Sed aliquet a nunc in mattis.

SpudBlaster15 wrote:I am still trying to find a material that accurately represents human skin in ballistic applications.

pig/goat carcasses why concerned about what your launcher can do to people anyway I know, I know, because it's cool.

I like the water box'o'truth method - stack up jugs of water and divide penetration by 2. it's not the most accurate or refined in the world but it gives a pretty good idea of performance (as well as a standard that allows you to compare performance with rounds already tested).

I spotted the notes about various different TV programmes, and decided to comment on them, even though they are about a week old.

@Mr_Crowley - Most of the time, any air cannon on the TV is vastly inferior to what a good spudder could make. I'm still waiting for the telephone call that tells me they want me as an "expert" on some science show...

@JSR: I did always like Scrapheap challenge... I'm not sure it's "gone", I think the rights were bought out my some satelite or cable station that I don't have.

The last episode I can actually remember watching was where they were doing some tribute to 200 years of the railways, with three teams - one for steam, one for diesel and one for electric.
I can't remember having seen such entertaining TV in a while.

And I agree. Brainiac is appalling... I'm still considering sueing them for mental damages over their appalling ballistics episodes - firstly, they call an onager a trebuchet, then they do a very poor comparison of pneumatics versus combustions.

I hear that there is to be a US version of the show "Life on Mars"... anyone heard anything about that?

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote: I like the water box'o'truth method - stack up jugs of water and divide penetration by 2. it's not the most accurate or refined in the world but it gives a pretty good idea of performance (as well as a standard that allows you to compare performance with rounds already tested).

I've been wondering about a standardised penetration test for all cannons.

Could be that plastic bottles of water could be a suitable standard...