Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect

But it's a #sharps. How could this be. Needs to be black powder. And all lead bullet.

Wow, it's almost as powerful as my 30-30.

If the Reynolds number is much less than 10, I don't get jokes.

Force doesn't have units of PSI. Psi is Pressure per square inch. 400 PSI is 2.758e+6 Pascals. A pascal is a Newton/Meter^2. Newtons are Kg*m/s^2. Multiply a Newton by a distance (meters) and you get Joules. Joules = Kg*m^2 / s^2 So if this thing had a pressure output of 2.758e6 pascals, that's roughly 27.5 atmospheres. Which means this thing can squeeze you at 27.5x atmospheric pressure at sea level. For perspective again, a depth change of 33 feet (10 meters) in the ocean will equate to adding an extra atmosphere (1) of pressure to a submerged body. So 27.5*10 = 275 meters. To get the same pressure, you would have to dive 275 meters below the ocean surface.

I only fenced for a year back in first college. Was fun though. Tried getting into it with some of the fencing/larping folks. But they were all window-licking jerk-offs. Thus I sold my sword.

Good thing we don't use any of those in our nerves, who knows what would happen? Also. "Iraqveteran8888's infamous videos on how far will ___ caliber kill seem extremely relevant here. Most rounds easily go out past 400 yards, but 9mm ball will go through ballistic gelatin at 400 yards. They didn't use the gel on the 45acp tests, but it too passes through the same reinforced plywood target. Clearly these rounds are no longer accelerating, which indicates momentum (simplistically energy+mass) does appear to be component factor in "killing power". Sadly, we don't get to see the extreme envelope in terms of range past 400y but accuracy falls way off in pistol rounds out that far." Does anyone want to tell this person that objects tend to not accelerate horizontally in flight? Only vertically (Toward the earth) and negatively horizontal due to friction forces?

No worries. I was more of a lab guy to be honest. I wrangled the PhDs and made sure everything kept running. I used to purify around 250 mgs of plasmid per batch that I would then keep in a water solution at 1mg/ml concentration until ready to be transfected into CHO cells. I got really good at cutting up DNA and ligation during my time at work hah.

If there's a typo, deal with it. It's my weekend, but I hope that clears a few things up. I think Toxn and Sturgis-man and myself are looking at the same thing from three different directions. Also, to answer your question, my biology focus was on molecular genetics and creating plasmids for shoving into CHO cells and then putting together bioreactors for large scale cell culture to produce antibodies. So immunology and genetics and a bit of bioengineering. Also did testing for a biopharma company for a while before going back to school for engineering. Also, it's currently sleeting outside so I don't think I'll get to the actual experiment today.

“Again, the swinging has nothing to do with increasing the protection. The arrow will either penetrate or not (my experience is of the arrow penetrating to about the depth of the head) and will transfer momentum as it does so. The swinging will only substantially take place after the penetration event.” This is your original postulate. You claim that “the swinging” (in regard to the movement of the object that has been struck) has nothing to do with the arrow penetrating. You've since cleared up a bit of what you have stated. You now say that there wont be an appreciable difference in penetration given a swinging vs stationary object (shield). That the difference would be purely academic, which you could be very correct on! However, you are also correct in your statement that nothing in real life is instantaneous. Again, true, depending on the relative reference. And in this case, your very point of penetration not being instantaneous is what makes a "swinging" object not be penetrated as far. I'll get to that later on, but I wrote up a bit on momentum and forces in case anybody was interested in getting a summary of Physics 1. So we’ll first have to get some definitions going. FORCE: Force is defined in physics as that which tends to change the momentum of a body containing mass. Force is proportional to the rate of change of momentum. That is, Force is the derivative of momentum. SI Units are the Newton In other words, Force is the product of a constant mass and an acceleration. Acceleration is the change of velocity with respect to a change in time (dV/dt!) MOME NTUM: Units are Kilogram per meter second (Kg*m)/s. Or, they can be said as Newton-Seconds (The seconds will cancel, since the Newton is a unit of force. In other words, taking a mass and multiplying it by the velocity will give us a momentum. Momentum is a conserved quality, much like Force. NET FORCE is the total amount of force exerted by a body in motion. It is the change in momentum divided by the change in time. We can actually determine the net force acting upon an object by using force balances and setting a proper coordinate system. So let’s start by doing some modeling. No, not that kind of modeling, Sturgeon. Put your shirt back on. We’ll start by modeling an elastic collision. The definition for such is as follows. An elastic collision is an encounter between two bodies in which the total kinetic energy of the two bodies after the encounter is equal to their total kinetic energy before the encounter. Elastic collisions occur only if there is no net conversion of kinetic energy into other forms. Let’s assume that we have two objects, on a single dimensional frictionless plane. Object A has a mass of 5 Kg and object B has a mass of 10 Kg. Object A is moving toward B on this plane at a speed of 1 m/s Calculating the momentum of A gives us the following A = 5 Kg*m/s, Sadly, they will collide. Not so sadly, they are hypothetical and we can do terrible things to hypotheticals without consequence. After the collision, we find that the new velocity of block A is -0.2 m/s Since we know that momentum is a conserved quantity, and there are no other forces, frictional or otherwise, in this 1-D plane, what will happen after they collide? (Assume right is positive direction and left is negative as you’re looking at the screen) Initial momentum of system = 5 Kg*m/s Pinitial = Ptotal before collision (P here is how we denote momentum PofA + PofB = Ptotal after the collision We can combine them into the following. 5 kg*m/s = 5 Kg * -0.2 m/s + 10 Kg * VfinalB Solving for the final speed of block B after impact, we find it to be Vfinal for block B is now 0.6 m/s Newton’s third law tells us that forces acting upon each other are equal yet in opposite directions. So the force on one is equal to the force on the other. Overall momentum will be conserved. Let’s look at once more example. What if block B was moving? Let’s give B a positive velocity of 0.4 m/s. I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t like it when two things move. How about we adjust our reference frame? Let’s do a moving reference frame. We focus in on block B, which is moving at 0.4 m/s. That means that, to the observer, block B is no longer moving (But we secretly know it is.) But now, Block A appears to be moving slower. In fact, it appears to be moving at 0.6 m/s (1-0.4!). So what kind of momentum are we going to be imparting into block B when they DO collide? (0.6)(5) = 3 kg*m/s! So because the second object was moving in the same direction as the initial block, it received LESS momentum! Since mass didn’t change, it is clear that Velocity played a major part. This is an important consideration we must remember as we move into our next part. Now that I’ve beaten that to death, let’s talk about what happens with something more tangible. How about an arrow? What if it’s an inelastic collision? First, we’ll define what exactly that means. An inelastic collision, in contrast to an elastic collision, is a collision in which kinetic energy is not conserved due to the action of internal friction. So what does any of that mean? In the most extreme case (which this is), one object completely sticks to another, imparting all of its momentum. In the case of an arrow penetrating an object, the depth of penetration is function of many different variables. Penetration requires one object to push the particles of another object out of the way. In doing so, the object doing the penetrating experiences many forces. Forces which are dependent on parameters. (Writing those sentences made me grin with sophomoric delight.) Material properties of the arrow tip, material properties of the object being struck, momentum of the arrow and the object, frictional forces (Which are tied to material properties), etc. When an arrow strikes a target in an inelastic collision, the tip doesn’t simply bounce away. The tip of the arrow pushes particles out of the way, and does so based on the arrow’s momentum (along with a butt-ton of other stuff). However, the arrow is equally pushed back against by the object it has struck. In fact, every particle that the arrow is attempting to push away is robbing the arrow of forward momentum. But it’s not instantaneous. This arresting of the arrow takes time. Not much, but it does. Kinetic energy is not conserved during an inelastic collision. That’s an important thing to remember. Also, the impulse time is different (aka, longer) during penetration. Forces are active over a longer period (no longer instantaneous, as was the case in elastic collisions) during penetration. This time difference is what gives rise to the penetration qualities of swinging vs stationary objects. At the moment the arrow strikes an object to the moment it stops within the object, momentum is exchanged. Within that time frame, the forces acting opposite to the arrow’s forces (friction within the object) create a force that will push a free (aka not stationary) object in the same direction as the arrow. This acceleration of the second object robs the arrow of forward velocity, as in our second example from above. If the velocity is lower, the penetration overall is lower. Again, holding all factors constant and only allowing velocity to change, we can build a model to prove this (Don’t make me do this in Matlab, please, I beg of you. It’s the weekend damnit.) This does not occur in a stationary object, where the friction forces are not split between moving the struck object AND stopping the arrow, in a sense (This is an oversimplification of force diagrams don’t you dare call me out, Collimatrix) So in summary, there are about 19348 (Rounding) factors that can effect penetration of one object into another. Holding most of them constant and watching how velocity of a penetrating object changes with respect to a reference frame of the struck object will show that allowing the struck object to use part of the force imparted by the penetrating object to begin a positive movement along the same direction as the penetrating object will lower the penetrative distance and still conserve momentum. Which might be the longest sentence I’ve ever written. Sources: http://cpw.state.co.us/documents/hunting/ehu/momentum-kineticenergy-arrowpenetration.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision http://www.physicstutorials.org/home/impulse-momentum/conservation-of-momentum http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Double-Trouble

I'm finishing up the momentum and force paper currently and I'll post examples and results. But in the meantime, yes, Sturgeon has said what I would have said. And for the record, I was a biologist before I went back for chemical engineering.

Alright Toxn, let's have some fun. I'm dusting off my Dynamics in Physics textbook and putting on my safety goggles for this bloodbath. When I'm done with classes for the day, I'm going to go home. I just so happen to own a bow, arrows, a target, and a place to hang said target. If you want a test, I'll give you a test. But I can assure you that the next post is going to contain a proper definition of force balances, sheering, penetration, and a bit of material analysis. In a sense, you're basically telling every single physicist since Newton that they are wrong, and backing up your claim with "Well it makes sense to me like this."

It's the fantasy of getting to kill all of those around you without the repercussions. And those with this fantasy are usually weak. So they empathize with the inept protagonists of zombie stories.

I love me some good hitbox porn. So I started DS3 last night. It was a late night. I have to say that so far it has combined the best of both the first games and a bit of Demons Souls. The best is the Matchmaking password filter. My friend and I could summon each other into each other's games within 5 seconds of putting a sign down thanks to it. Amazing work, Fromsoft. The weapon arts are a great addition. Makes for some good mix-ups. I also killed my first invader last night, AND it involved the first parry for DS3 on another player. It felt amazing.

There's always youtube! I found this explanation of how to get through Anor Londo to be particularly helpful.

"Hard" is relative. Most things that I find are "hard" are poorly designed RNG elements and bad gameplay mechanics. "Hard" and "Challenging" don't necessarily mean the same thing to me in this regard. For example, I just beat Ornstein and Smough on a DS1 character. Third try was the charm after I botched a roll or two. It was a challenging fight, but completely doable if I did my part. On the other hand, fights like The Watcher and Throne Defender from DS2 I find particularly "hard". Their bad RNS and design make them a royal pain in the ass, and I rarely ever attempt to solo that fight because I find it incredibly tiresome and annoying. So as I've said before, while the occasional RNG roll will screw you over, the DS series is pretty fair. Just have to do your part.

Only because they punish mistakes harshly. This form of risk is missing in most mainstream gaming media. When people can speedrun them in less than an hour (And a little over an hour for the second game), I wouldn't consider them unfairly hard. I started DS1 completely blind. I didn't know anything about the game previously. The worst area for me was most likely Anor Londo or Sens Fortress, due to how exact you have to be in your movements and parry timing.

For anyone who thinks the games are difficult: Lobosjr's speedrun (Not a worldrecord) of DS1

I have a couple of guns. A 3-gun 11-87, two CZ pistols, two AR-15s (One might be interesting, even), M44, blah blah. I've got a few guns. But I also have this.

That's not really a surprising fact. There's a ton of genomes out there in which most genes are a mystery. If they code for anything on a regular basis at all.

I'm not sure you could make that pistol any quieter than it is in its current condition. Perhaps cover it in bubble wrap.

Bed of chaos is easily the worst fight of any souls game. Thankfully, it's easy to cheese and I usually can beat that in a minute or so. I just ordered 3. Now to see my GPA tank. I have 3 characters in NG+1 or higher in the first game. The second game I exclusively PvP now because I've beaten it more times than I'd care to admit. And I am proud to say I've never used dark magic or a katana.

I hear you began your own trip to Lordran, sturgks-man. How goes it?

First, everyone needs to be caught up on the story. Dark Souls 3 comes out in twenty days. Thus I have twenty days before my life is consumed once again by the flame. Dark Souls 1 PVP: Pivot Backstabs Dark Souls 2 PVP: spin spin spin R1 katana spam spin spin Dark souls 3 PVP: ????? Praise the sun, The Fluffy Tail, and may we never have another boss fight like The Bed of Chaos.

My Tacoma is a '98, and I plan to be buried with the bastard. I was slammed by an 18 year old girl with a paper license in a parking lot last year. She was doing about 30 in a little Chevy Cobalt. It spun me 90 degrees. I drove home. Her car was totaled.

These are all nerd cars.