Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #607292 > unrolled thread

Which one penetrates more easily...?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Which one penetrates more easily...? JiiPee <no@notvalid.com> - 2016-12-01 01:17 +0000
    Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 07:00 +0100
      Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? JiiPee <no@notvalid.com> - 2016-12-01 11:17 +0000
        Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 13:42 +0100
    Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 09:33 -0800
      Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-01 10:30 -0800
    Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-01 12:39 -0600
      Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? JiiPee <no@notvalid.com> - 2016-12-01 22:22 +0000
        Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 16:28 -0600
        Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 07:07 +0100
    Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-12-01 19:16 +0000
      Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? JiiPee <no@notvalid.com> - 2016-12-01 22:24 +0000
        Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-01 17:00 -0600
        Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-12-01 23:06 +0000
          Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? JiiPee <no@notvalid.com> - 2016-12-02 00:13 +0000
    Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:19 -0800
      Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:51 -0800
        Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-01 17:12 -0800
      Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-12-01 19:03 -0600
      Re: Which one penetrates more easily...? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-01 20:44 -0500

#607292 — Which one penetrates more easily...?

If I want to prove/test that a car with a speed of 400 km/hour can not 
penetrate a certain width of steel plate is this logic valid:

  I know that a bullet cannot penetrate that plate so a much slower car 
would not penetrate it neither.

I know there is energy involved. Does this car have so much more energy 
that it can still penetrate that plate even though a bullet cannot? (say 
bullet it made of very hard material).

But on the other hand bullet is much thinner so isnt it true that it 
penetrates more easily?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#607315

Dne 01/12/2016 v 02:17 JiiPee napsal(a):
> If I want to prove/test that a car with a speed of 400 km/hour can not
> penetrate a certain width of steel plate is this logic valid:
> 
>  I know that a bullet cannot penetrate that plate so a much slower car
> would not penetrate it neither.

Invalid
> 
> I know there is energy involved. Does this car have so much more energy
> that it can still penetrate that plate even though a bullet cannot? (say
> bullet it made of very hard material).

without needed info, it is hard to say,
as for both the bullet and the car
is hard  to determine the available / needed energy ratios.
> 
> But on the other hand bullet is much thinner so isnt it true that it
> penetrates more easily?

As a rule of thumb, without any needed balistic knowledge,
the needed energy is proportional to the impact crossection,
while available energy is 1/2.m.v^2.

For the same shape and structure,
the crosssection is proportional to m^(2/3).




-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607318

On 01/12/2016 06:00, Poutnik wrote:
> without needed info, it is hard to say,
> as for both the bullet and the car
> is hard  to determine the available / needed energy ratios.

yes but rough estimate, not exact calculations

>> >
>> >But on the other hand bullet is much thinner so isnt it true that it
>> >penetrates more easily?
> As a rule of thumb, without any needed balistic knowledge,
> the needed energy is proportional to the impact crossection,
> while available energy is 1/2.m.v^2.
>
> For the same shape and structure,
> the crosssection is proportional to m^(2/3).

I am not familiar with physics too much so what would this mean? Best 
would be an answer without formulas but just explanation what is the 
result and why.

I mean, I have seen a lot of videos bullet penetrating a wide metal 
plate. But there is limit also: if the plate is wide enough it does not 
penetrate anymore. So could I then make an conclusion that a car would 
not penetrate that kind of plate neither because a bullet is more likely 
to do that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607319

On 12/01/2016 12:17 PM, JiiPee wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 06:00, Poutnik wrote:
>> without needed info, it is hard to say,
>> as for both the bullet and the car
>> is hard  to determine the available / needed energy ratios.
>
> yes but rough estimate, not exact calculations

Rough estimate is : it depends.
As there is no real input, even rough output is garbage.

Some cars penetrate some walls more easily than some bullets.
Some cars penetrate some walls less easily than some bullets.

It very depends on lot of not available data.

>> As a rule of thumb, without any needed balistic knowledge,
>> the needed energy is proportional to the impact crossection,
>> while available energy is 1/2.m.v^2.
>>
>> For the same shape and structure,
>> the crosssection is proportional to m^(2/3).
>
> I am not familiar with physics too much so what would this mean? Best
> would be an answer without formulas but just explanation what is the
> result and why.

Result depends on particular values.

And even for particular values,
result would depend on practical test,
rather than on theoretical estimation.

Unless the energy is so high or low the result is obvious.

>
> I mean, I have seen a lot of videos bullet penetrating a wide metal
> plate. But there is limit also: if the plate is wide enough it does not
> penetrate anymore. So could I then make an conclusion that a car would
> not penetrate that kind of plate neither because a bullet is more likely
> to do that?


there are not bullets like bullet.
they differ in mass, velocity and shape.

There are also armor piercing bullets,
containing a comulative explosive charge,
what act like a miniature shot of the WWII German tiger tank.



-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607355

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 5:17:34 PM UTC-8, JiiPee wrote:
> If I want to prove/test that a car with a speed of 400 km/hour can not 
> penetrate a certain width of steel plate is this logic valid:
> 
>   I know that a bullet cannot penetrate that plate so a much slower car 
> would not penetrate it neither.
> 
> I know there is energy involved. Does this car have so much more energy 
> that it can still penetrate that plate even though a bullet cannot? (say 
> bullet it made of very hard material).
> 
> But on the other hand bullet is much thinner so isnt it true that it 
> penetrates more easily?

Weight + Speed =Force  Trebert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607369

"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote:
> Weight + Speed =Force  Trebert
>
hanson wrote:
Bert, which one of your 17 theories does arrive at that?
Explain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607371

On 11/30/2016 7:17 PM, JiiPee wrote:
> If I want to prove/test that a car with a speed of 400 km/hour can not
> penetrate a certain width of steel plate is this logic valid:
>
>  I know that a bullet cannot penetrate that plate so a much slower car
> would not penetrate it neither.

> I know there is energy involved. Does this car have so much more energy
> that it can still penetrate that plate even though a bullet cannot? (say
> bullet it made of very hard material).
>
> But on the other hand bullet is much thinner so isnt it true that it
> penetrates more easily?

you need shape of the car/bullet

you need hardness of car/bullet/plate

you need velocities and mass of car/bullet


there is a simple approximation,
the length times the mass of the bullet is equal to the length of 
penetration devided by the mass of the material.

but that applies to long items, like in spear fishing in water

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607452

On 01/12/2016 18:39, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
> there is a simple approximation,
> the length times the mass of the bullet is equal to the length of 
> penetration devided by the mass of the material. 


ok, this might be helpful.

the point is here that I wonder if using a bullet I could prove that 
other objects cannot penetrate certain material. The logic: if bullet 
cannot penetrate then neither the other object. Is this roughly true?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607456

On 12/1/2016 4:22 PM, JiiPee wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 18:39, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
>> there is a simple approximation,
>> the length times the mass of the bullet is equal to the length of
>> penetration devided by the mass of the material.
>
>
> ok, this might be helpful.
>
> the point is here that I wonder if using a bullet I could prove that
> other objects cannot penetrate certain material. The logic: if bullet
> cannot penetrate then neither the other object. Is this roughly true?
>

No, it is not true.

You have in your head that the bullet must be one of the more 
penetrative things around. But what is that based on, in your mind? That 
it is fast? That it is small and sharp? What?

As an example, a bullet will get absorbed by a hay bale, but a sharp 
blade that is swung by hand will cut right through a hay bale, and a car 
that is moving at a speed between the blade and the bullet will 
obliterate the hay bale without even slowing down.

That's the point that other people have been making. There is no ONE 
FACTOR that a bullet has that makes it more penetrating than other 
things. Whether something penetrates another depends on a number of 
factors -- the mass of the projectile, the structural composition of the 
projectile, the speed of the projectile, the shape of the projectile, 
the impacting surface area of the projectile. There isn't just one 
factor that is more important than the others.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607510

Dne 01/12/2016 v 23:22 JiiPee napsal(a):
> On 01/12/2016 18:39, Yuri Kreaton wrote:
>> there is a simple approximation,
>> the length times the mass of the bullet is equal to the length of
>> penetration devided by the mass of the material. 
> 
> 
> ok, this might be helpful.
> 
> the point is here that I wonder if using a bullet I could prove that
> other objects cannot penetrate certain material. The logic: if bullet
> cannot penetrate then neither the other object. Is this roughly true?
> 
It sounds almost as a bullet marking of walls
that can be crushed by an ISIS assassin car.

It is roughly true that if the unsuccessful bullet
has  the ratio available/needed energy = X,
than objects with this ration lower
will be usuccesfull as well.

The point is, while available energy is easy to calculate,
getting the needed energy is very hard.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607389

JiiPee <no@notvalid.com> wrote:
> If I want to prove/test that a car with a speed of 400 km/hour can not 
> penetrate a certain width of steel plate is this logic valid:
> 
>  I know that a bullet cannot penetrate that plate so a much slower car 
> would not penetrate it neither.
> 
> I know there is energy involved. Does this car have so much more energy 
> that it can still penetrate that plate even though a bullet cannot? (say 
> bullet it made of very hard material).
> 
> But on the other hand bullet is much thinner so isnt it true that it 
> penetrates more easily?

Projectile penetration is highly complex and depends on the projectile
shape, velocity and material as well as the characteristics of the
material you are trying to penetrate.

At low velocities and hard pointed projectiles all you have is basic
mechanical deformation as the kinetic energy drives the point into
the material like a hammer drives a nail.

At sufficiently high velocities the energy released upon impact becomes
such that the target material is melted.

As for shooting cars at steel plates, does tearing the plate to pieces
count as penetration?

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607454

On 01/12/2016 19:16, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> As for shooting cars at steel plates, does tearing the plate to pieces
> count as penetration?


ok put it this way: if the car goes totally (or lets say 10 meters) to 
the other side of the plate we can say it penetrated it, yes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607464

On 12/1/2016 4:24 PM, JiiPee wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 19:16, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> As for shooting cars at steel plates, does tearing the plate to pieces
>> count as penetration?
>
>
> ok put it this way: if the car goes totally (or lets say 10 meters) to
> the other side of the plate we can say it penetrated it, yes.
>

if the plate is 1/32 inch thick, car will blow a hole in it.

if plate is 1 inch thick, car will be compressed upon plate, no penetration


if car melted and recast as steel spear and shot at 1 inch steel plate 
at 300mph, it may make it through.

if replace steel plate with 1" titanium, good luck, as titanium has 
material charistics that make it stronger than steel in some applications

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607466

JiiPee <no@notvalid.com> wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 19:16, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> As for shooting cars at steel plates, does tearing the plate to pieces
>> count as penetration?
> 
> 
> ok put it this way: if the car goes totally (or lets say 10 meters) to 
> the other side of the plate we can say it penetrated it, yes.

In reality any car that went through all but the thinnest of steel
plates, e.g. foil, would not come out the other side as a car.

What is holding this plate in place such that the plate is not simply pushed?
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607475

On 01/12/2016 23:06, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> What is holding this plate in place such that the plate is not simply pushed?


say its a wall of a building for example. or a long wall

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607467

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 5:17:34 PM UTC-8, JiiPee wrote:
> If I want to prove/test that a car with a speed of 400 km/hour can not 
> penetrate a certain width of steel plate is this logic valid:

  Experiment trumps logic (650 mph):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DeBJqrS680

  Answer- No.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607472

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 3:19:36 PM UTC-8, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 5:17:34 PM UTC-8, JiiPee wrote:
> > If I want to prove/test that a car with a speed of 400 km/hour can not 
> > penetrate a certain width of steel plate is this logic valid:
> 
>   Experiment trumps logic (650 mph):
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DeBJqrS680
> 
>   Answer- No.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

Battle ship very heavy steel,but we build shells  to pierce it and explode inside. Way inside the better.Bombs too. Knock out tanks etc. Trebert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607492

Ferger says that "reber g=emc^2" 
<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> is a cretin who wrote:
 > Battle ship very heavy steel,but we build shells  to pierce 
it and explode inside. Way inside the better.Bombs too. 
Knock out tanks etc. Trebert
>
hanson wrote:
Glazier, you have explained all that much better when 
you made your own gun-powder, which you detailed
when when you, the Full Swine and Criminal Graveyard
>
Vandal <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine>
Tre:B::ert Glazier introduces himself with & as....
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works."
:B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible (torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert
:B:: "God and religion is hocus pocus". Trebert.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face
:B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
:B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I left my dentures in Boston when I fled to CA
:B:: to evade my creditors & my daugher Sheri who
:B:: wanted to warehouse me in a nursing homne". 
:B:: "I have a Social worker to make sure that I eat 
:B:: my Lithium & 21 other pills. I paint Grey Cloud."
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I am living in my Van that I parked illegally
:B:: on Wal-Mart's property for over a year." Bert
:B:: "I shit into a bucket in my van and then throw
:B:: the bag full of crap into Walmart's Dumpsters"
:B:: "Mayor Tait told me to get lost when I demanded
:B::  a contract to clean the city's HVAC ducts.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I am a loser & so ugly I will not vote for myself"
:B:: "I re-franchize my M&M (Maggots & Manure).".
:B:: "I sell imaginary boats and defective patio decks"
:B:: "I stole & gave G=EMC^2 to the world", which 
:B:: says: "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism"
:B:: "With G=EMC^2 I made all good posters leave s.p."
B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them"....
:B:: "I mixed sulfer, carb & iron to make gun powder" 
:B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert
:B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
:B:: "I got kicked out of school in the 4th grade. Bert.
:B:: "I am self-taught. I'm very *cleaver* out of the box."
:B:: "My cockroach taught me a lot. My grammar stinks"
:B:: "While I was in custody of Osceola Sheriff Bob 
:B:: Hansel, for thieving, his deputies beat me up. 
:B:: I bought a 357 magnum for death threats by Hansel.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607488

On 12/1/2016 5:19 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 5:17:34 PM UTC-8, JiiPee wrote:
>> If I want to prove/test that a car with a speed of 400 km/hour can not
>> penetrate a certain width of steel plate is this logic valid:
>
>   Experiment trumps logic (650 mph):
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DeBJqrS680
>
>   Answer- No.
>
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson
>

excellent, there is no substitute for experimentation

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#607499

On 12/1/2016 6:19 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 5:17:34 PM UTC-8, JiiPee wrote:
>> If I want to prove/test that a car with a speed of 400 km/hour can not
>> penetrate a certain width of steel plate is this logic valid:
>
>   Experiment trumps logic (650 mph):
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DeBJqrS680
>
>   Answer- No.

Now THIS is what makes "science" fun! And the "snowplow" car cplit video 
ain't too shabby either! Who wants to search for a Higgs Boson when you 
can do "physics" like this?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web