Dena
In real tissues, outcome-data manifestly exhibits …
While impact momentum cannot be used as a stand-alone
predictor of penetration it does show
positive correlation
with outcome penetration; it demonstrates
relevancy. This
means impact momentum can be used as a predictive function
when all other arrow penetration factors are constant.
With a constant arrow, real tissue data confirms: Average
tissue penetration increase is
directly proportional to the
increase in impact momentum. Several instances of this have
been presented in Updates, and yet another will be showing up
in the new Updates.
Among actual outcomes, kinetic energy has failed to show
positive correlation with tissue penetration. It is not useful
as either predictor or predictive function.
On casual observation it might appear that kinetic energy
should be applicable. After all, a substantial portion of it
is represented by the arrow's velocity, and arrow velocity is
a contributive component to momentum. However, any direct
kinetic energy application overlooks important factors: (1)
the disproportional increase in penetration-resistance
actually exhibited
by tissues as velocity increases; (2) the
mechanics of the impulse of force during penetration and; (3)
the fact that, by its very definition, kinetic energy cannot
be used as either a measure or indicator of force.
It is due to disproportional resistance increase and
impulse mechanics that the penetration/kinetic-energy
relationship steadfastly exhibits decrement during tissue
testing. The penetration-increase to kinetic-energy-increase
ratio is not proportional.
Decrement should not be confused with a negative
correlation. It simply indicates that the rate of penetrationincrease
constantly decreases as impact kinetic energy
increases. With a constant arrow,will the percentage of
penetration gain become smaller?
I have always wondered and didn't know who to ask.
Threaded Mode