View Full Version : Poison filled Hollow Points?
rhineoshott
12-07-2009, 15:37
Has anyone thought about putting poison in the cavity of a hollow point bullet? The thought occured to me recently. I think the only tactical advantage would be in situations like:
Combatants trying to slaughter lots of people in a single attack. You have limited ammo, so you you don't want have to shoot someone again if you didn't make a kill shot the first time.
or
Someone is trying to murder you and is chasing you through field, mountain and forrest. You manage to get a shot on him but only hit his elbow, a non lethal shot. Your life will no longer be at risk.
1. Would it be legal?
2. Would it be ethical? (depends on the length of time it takes the poison to become lethal. lets say 30min)
3. Would it work? (I've found a little info online. People supposedly put it in and then seal it with candle wax)
4. What type of poison makes a sure kill, preferably in a timely manner.
This talks about using it in airgun pellets:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2682455/how_to_make_poison_ammo/
I vote for not legal. Using poison isn't exactly a "Him or Me" kind of situation. At least to the courts it won't look like that. The only scenarios I can think of where this would be applicable, are in non-fiction novels I've read.
1. Not legal as it would be deemed premediated murder.
2. Ethical... depends on your beliefs. For me, no.
3. Would work depending on composite used such as a paste or something "sticky".. which opens a whole other can of problems.
4. Not going to answer for legal reasons.
Great-Kazoo
12-07-2009, 16:16
unless you have a shock proof capsule in which to contain said item, the recoil and exit from bbl would disperse the item prior to delivery. if it was a solid unit them you would need to ensure that it was fast acting. your other issue is a hollow point starts to spread out upon contact (hopefully) depending on type of HP used and object it hit the answer is No it is not feasable.
a better bet is delivery via arrow or dart/blowgun.
setting up a round to deliver a more lethal device would possibly be considered premediated, as you were prior to force continuim contact prepared to end said life.
of course a lawyer can answer any and all questions in private, for a reasonable fee vs. putting your shit out there on the web for all to see.
if you were faced with multiple attackers and nothing was going to slow them down other than super lethal means. liquid or aerosolized delivery is the most effective means. this way it enters through any portal of entry. However the time of delivery vs, effects will vary depending on temp, distance from dispersal unit, are they wearing chemical mask etc.
myself i'd go for a HE charge
not legal.
kind of pointless since you are shooting them with a bullet designed to do damage, not with a dart or arrow.
ask the pigmies,, they use frog juice.
If you are using poison bullets and you accidently get a non-lethal hit on an innocent, no one is going to be happy with you when they die.
I'm curious about this premeditated angle, because it seems like you could use the same argument for using hollow points. Or even 10mm (If you're Daniel Fish).
SA Friday
12-07-2009, 16:25
Limited ammo?
I'm sorry, this concept is foreign to me...
rhineoshott
12-07-2009, 16:31
I hope I didn't give the impression that I was going to actually do this. I"M NOT!!
Somewhere I read that a few poison bullets were used in the Civil War (without permission)
If you are using poison bullets and you accidently get a non-lethal hit on an innocent, no one is going to be happy with you when they die.
I'm curious about this premeditated angle, because it seems like you could use the same argument for using hollow points. Or even 10mm (If you're Daniel Fish).
Yeah, accidents would be REALLY bad.
What about those "inferno" bullets someone posted a vid of a little while ago. Those seem like extra cruelty
I'm curious about this premeditated angle, because it seems like you could use the same argument for using hollow points. Or even 10mm (If you're Daniel Fish).
Good point... the way I would see it. Bullets are designed to kill, whether hunting human or animal. Poison also kills. While it is accepted that bullets kill, the common arguement for self defense is to wound in order to cause the assailant to "cease and desist", not kill them. That's just an accepted happenstance when it happens. If one puts posion on top of a bullet might be considered overkill since it would be said you were intentionally TRYING to kill and thus premeditated? ... I don't know. Sounds good to me.
I sorry to be such a killjoy but, really?
I mean, really?
Too much T.V. and video games.
I would have thought "lead poisoning" would be sufficient.
Why not just bolo shotgun rounds dipped into a carbon footprint. Surely that will kill anyone.
Why not just bolo shotgun rounds dipped into a carbon footprint. Surely that will kill anyone.
BOLO?! HAHA. Awesome. +1.
I was thinking about using those beach slings and filling a water balloon with a half and half mix of poison and gas!! lol.
Reminds me of some fun friends used to have. Everyone knows what handball is right? So these twins would take a tennis ball, put a one inch slit in it and stuff it with those strikeanywhere match heads. One would have it in their bag, then when they were playing one would pretend like they were getting angry and finally switch out the balls (without anyone noticeing during a break) and then just throw the ball at the wall. Fun fireworks and always got peoples attention, lol. Jeff then became known as "firethrower". HAHA.
Damn,, The name of the movie escapes Me at the moment.. Kind of a vigilante movie that came out in the early-mid 80's.. He was putting mercury in his,, Yes, He sealed them with the candle wax.. Great movie, kind of the "B" type..
As far a the q's go,,
What would be the point? Shot placement would do more than any poison..
Not real sure "if" one could get a sufficiant dose into a HP to do any good anyway..
Chances are the would die of the GSW long before the posion would do any harm..
One of the later Death Wish movies Marlin?
Man, you could put enough ricin in the cavity of a .22lr hollowpoint to kill a horse! Probably several horses. A person shot from a long range with a .22 with a few specks of ricin in it won't die right away, but they will be dead within 48 hours. I've read that's some nasty stuff and just a speck is all it takes. No antidote either.
I'd fill my hollow points with nicotine and the bad cholesterol.
One of the later Death Wish movies Marlin?
NO this one had Robert Ginty in it... Sad, I can remember half the dialog but not the name of the movie...
Guess I'm off to IMdb.....
ETA: The Exterminator... Classic....
I don't know about poisons, because it would suck if you poisoned yourself. Maybe a setative instead? But I have heard of people putting all sorts of things in their bullets. Like filling a slug with primers so it explodes when it hits something. And then there are tons of TV gun experts saying you can put poisons in bullets just to shoot cops... but its just to say banning illegal guns would be a better way to go.
Daniel_187
12-08-2009, 10:15
Remember Jaws II when he was filling the tips of thoses .38Spl rounds and putting wax on them. Sounds cool but just do 2 to the chest 1 to the head
rhineoshott
12-08-2009, 17:58
a) most bullets exit there target
b) bullets get extremely hot... ever had a piece of brass go down your shirt? Well, the bullet is a shit ton hotter, and when it hits its target, it gets even hotter
c) The damage a bullet causes is generally going to prevent any circulation of the affected areas, so your "poison" doesn't go anywhere
d) Most poisons.. the vast, vast, vast majority, are not going to have any rapid effect. Anything you could build without being hauled off to terrorist pound-you-in-the-ass federal prison would take HOURS to have any effect. So if you shoot mr assailant with your special poison round in the elbow, well, the only situation that you made a difference is when you both are running the NYC marathon. Even then, I suspect blood loss is a bigger issue to the other guy.
Point: Stop watching so much TV, lol.
B. Good point. Air resistance makes bullets get hot too.[Sweat]
Hey I don't even have a TV [Tooth], I think of these myself.[Smart]
I'd think an anti-coagulant would be nice.
palepainter
12-08-2009, 18:04
[LOL]If the bullets themselves are not going to do the job for you, perhaps it is time to sell the guns.
Why not just seal it up /w some more lead? i would be curious to see what a mercury filled and lead sealed round and a tiny bit of air in it would do vs steel plate compared to the non modified round. I would think the mercury help more /w barrier defeating than anything. Kind of like the old party trick where you tap the top your buddies bottle of beer, and the bottom of his shatters off....
How would a liquid help defeat a solid barrier? We're not talking about a tsunami or something here. It doesn't help that I don't know anything about mercury other than that it is dense and interesting to play with.
I also know about the trick you are talking about, and am having a hard time seeing how that relates to shooting a heavy metal Gusher* at someone.
*Those delicious fruit snacks that are filled with more liquid delicious.
GunTroll
12-08-2009, 18:41
I like to dip my bullets in my own piss after an all nighter drinking PBR! Won't do anything special to the BG but it makes me feel better thinking I theoretically pissed on him and pierced his ass in one shot!
How would a liquid help defeat a solid barrier? We're not talking about a tsunami or something here. It doesn't help that I don't know anything about mercury other than that it is dense and interesting to play with.
I also know about the trick you are talking about, and am having a hard time seeing how that relates to shooting a heavy metal Gusher* at someone.
*Those delicious fruit snacks that are filled with more liquid delicious.
I also dont know very much about mercury, but I was thinking something with that much density moving that fast with the lead acting mainly as a carrier for it would pack some extra punch through. and the liquid like state of the mercury would give it an extra punch as the leat hit target and the mercury tries to keep going.
I'd think an anti-coagulant would be nice.
in vietnam cobra gunships carried rockets loaded with flechettes packed in anti coagulant.
charlie would see a red puff and know he was done for.
I also dont know very much about mercury, but I was thinking something with that much density moving that fast with the lead acting mainly as a carrier for it would pack some extra punch through. and the liquid like state of the mercury would give it an extra punch as the leat hit target and the mercury tries to keep going.
I don't think the mercury moving inside the lead would have any effect other than destabilizing the bullet. I seem to remember some lesson in physics about running around on the inside of a bus, not effecting the forward motion of the bus.
Like if you crashed a water truck into a brick wall, I don't think the presence of the water would have any effect other than to add mass to the truck. I practically failed physics though, so don't take what I say too seriously.
Despite being a physics failure, I'm still positive that a plane could take off from a treadmill moving in the opposite direction. It boggles my mind when people think opposite on that little riddle.
I don't think the mercury moving inside the lead would have any effect other than destabilizing the bullet. I seem to remember some lesson in physics about running around on the inside of a bus, not effecting the forward motion of the bus.
Like if you crashed a water truck into a brick wall, I don't think the presence of the water would have any effect other than to add mass to the truck. I practically failed physics though, so don't take what I say too seriously.
Despite being a physics failure, I'm still positive that a plane could take off from a treadmill moving in the opposite direction. It boggles my mind when people think opposite on that little riddle.
haha its all good man!
When that bus your running around in hits a brick wall though, it may not have a huge effect on the bus, but your going to tend to stay in motion and punch right through the windshield and eat brick! (buss = bullet, you = mercury) haha
and if the water truck was half full, would the water slosh forward and push the truck further, not just because of the added mass of the watter, but the added shove of the water sloshing forward. Same thing with the merc in the bullet. if you left a little air space for it to "slosh" forward, it may help push through something. Maybe add the merc to the round, then put a small piece of paper or cloth over it to build some layers of "air space" then cap it /w lead?
I think we are both just taking shots in the dark with this one lol
Despite being a physics failure, I'm still positive that a plane could take off from a treadmill moving in the opposite direction. It boggles my mind when people think opposite on that little riddle.
I can actually explain that one! With some modifications, yes a plane could take off from a runway. But a plane such as a C130 or other big bird can not. The aircraft creates lift with the speed of air under it's wings. When it is on a treadmill, there is no air speed. Yes, the treadmill will get it going fast enough to theoretically lift off, but there will be no air movement under the wings to provide lift....
Like jogging, when you are out on teh street jogging, you can feel the wind on your face. On a treadmill, not so much... how's that?! Passed Physics, but failed Calculus...
I can actually explain that one! With some modifications, yes a plane could take off from a runway. But a plane such as a C130 or other big bird can not. The aircraft creates lift with the speed of air under it's wings. When it is on a treadmill, there is no air speed. Yes, the treadmill will get it going fast enough to theoretically lift off, but there will be no air movement under the wings to provide lift....
Like jogging, when you are out on teh street jogging, you can feel the wind on your face. On a treadmill, not so much... how's that?! Passed Physics, but failed Calculus...
I completely disagree. The problem with the way you attack this problem is that you liken it to walking or driving where the power is transported to the ground. With any airplane (that I know of), the forward motion is provided by force on the still air around the airplane. The better example is holding onto a rope, while standing on rollerskates, while on a treadmill. The treadmill can move as fast as it wants, and you will still be easily able to pull yourself forward by the rope.
Same with an airplane, the treadmill can move in the opposite direction (of take off) 5 times as fast as the forward ground speed of the airplane, but once you fire up those jets, it's not going to matter any more (unless the pilot stomps on the brakes).
bjl913: The issue with running a water truck into a brick wall, is that the forward motion of the water is already accounted for. Just because something isn't physically attached, doesn't mean that it suddenly has more inertia. I imagine that a truck full of water, and a truck full of an equal mass of ice, would have the same force at speed.
Mythbusters did a similar experiment by firing a frozen turkey and a thawed turkey out of a cannon. The thawed turkey would just explode on impact, and the frozen turkey would punch right through.
* I really do suck at math and physics, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Correct Sturtle, there has to be forward motion... on a treadmill, there is no forward motion (just stationary), thus no lift on the wings. So with a proplane, the prop would wash the air back over teh body, the speed would pull the plane forward and provide lift... however, on atreadmill, the speed would match the power of the prop but it wouldn't move and wouldn't create sufficient lift.... Hope that makes sense...
We need to call Mythbusters. Don't know how old this is but I did find this: http://boingboing.net/2008/01/28/mythbusters-tackles.html someone let me know the final result.
STurtle, you are correct, you need forward motion. However, back to lift: A prop plane will create forward motion by the backwash of the prop moving the air over the body of the plane, as it moves forward, more air is generated and the wings provide lift. On a treadmill, the forward motion (creating air flow over teh wings) is negated as the forward motion is nullified by the back motion of the treadmill.... There is not enough lift to give flight...
Someone needs to call Mythbusters... I did find this: http://boingboing.net/2008/01/28/mythbusters-tackles.html Someone let me know the final result.
Yeah but since the wheels are just free spinning, and not attached to anything, how does the treadmill overcome the pull of the props?
For instance, couldn't a water plane take off from a river while heading upstream? If a water plane could take off while going upstream, there is no way a regular plane couldn't take off of a treadmill. The friction of water on a pontoon (both static and kinetic) would be much more difficult to over come than a free spinning wheel.
theGinsue
12-08-2009, 23:57
Limited ammo?
I'm sorry, this concept is foreign to me...
Man, I like the way you think!
I can actually explain that one! With some modifications, yes a plane could take off from a runway. But a plane such as a C130 or other big bird can not. The aircraft creates lift with the speed of air under it's wings. When it is on a treadmill, there is no air speed. Yes, the treadmill will get it going fast enough to theoretically lift off, but there will be no air movement under the wings to provide lift....
Like jogging, when you are out on teh street jogging, you can feel the wind on your face. On a treadmill, not so much... how's that?! Passed Physics, but failed Calculus...
This is known as induced wind.
The whole idea of adding a poison to a bullet just seems unethical and immoral to my sense of decency. Lead poisoning, 55gr at a time is what I would prefer.
Yeah but since the wheels are just free spinning, and not attached to anything, how does the treadmill overcome the pull of the props?
For instance, couldn't a water plane take off from a river while heading upstream? If a water plane could take off while going upstream, there is no way a regular plane couldn't take off of a treadmill. The friction of water on a pontoon (both static and kinetic) would be much more difficult to over come than a free spinning wheel.
Good points... man, I sure would like to catch that episode of Mythbusters and find out the answer. I am assuming that the treadmill is not powered. Neither are the wheels on a prop. So, as the prop pulls the plane forward, the wheels would move the treadmill backwards at the same speed. I don't know. The water plane makes perfect sense to me as there is still forward motion. There is no forward motion on a treadmill... thoughts?
I'm about to go buy a treadmill and an RC plane, HAHAHA. I know there are some pilots on here, they need to jump in.
BTW, to keep it all on topic. Poison bullets are worthless, just make your shot count. HA.
Poison bullets are like stabbing someone with a poison chainsaw.
Poison bullets are like stabbing someone with a poison chainsaw.
I would have to agree.
the only thing I could think of would be a frangible round, shot against body armor except the frangible round is laced with mustard gas or something to that effect.
then again I don't know how much gas you could get into a small round like that and if it would be lethal.
either way, bullets have been doing a good job for hundreds of years, the only thing I would want improvement on is unlimited ammo[Beer]
Circuits
12-09-2009, 11:45
Poison need not be a liquid, or present in large quantities to be lethal. The dried secretions of poison dart frogs (mentioned previously) and crystalline cyanide would be two extremely potent, non-liquid poisons which could theoretically be used on a bullet.
Such an agent relies on blood/fluid in the wound to wet and mobilize it.
With a sufficiently lethal agent, capillary action and seepage near the wound would like be enough to transport a lethal dose to the circulatory system, then on to the CNS.
Poisons on any weapon, even otherwise deadly weapons, have traditionally been frowned upon within the framework of the law - going back to medieval times and the roots of the common law. It was okay to kill a man in a duel with cold steel, but treacherous and cowardly to coat your blade with poison to achieve the same purpose. I'm not really sure how modern law would handle such a case.
I'm glad you brought up dueling Circuits, because I've considered the ramifications of legalizing dueling and think it makes for good conversation.
lol, how would you even duel today? "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight kid." HAHA. And then what rules would there be? "My DE is bigger than your .22" lol. Interesting concept. I remember taking a fencing class in college, that was FUN!! On the other hand, I think it would be a great tool and help to teach self esteem, disicipline, respect, etc that seems to be lacking in my opinion.
I guess it'd kind of be like getting a fight sanctioned by the city. I guess you could have non-lethal dueling, but there are already some venues for that, like Test n Tune, or even the Friday Night ET series at Bandimere if you have a beef with someone else with a fast car or something.
GreenScoutII
12-09-2009, 13:59
I'm glad you brought up dueling Circuits, because I've considered the ramifications of legalizing dueling and think it makes for good conversation.
Good point. I have often thought the same thing about fights in general. I don't know how old everybody here is, but back when I was in Jr. High and High school it was not unheard of for the coach to put gloves on two guys who couldn't seem to get along. He would then lock them in the wrestling room for 15 minutes if both were willing participants. There was no one else in the room so the two combatants had to work out their beef between the two of them. After the fifteen minutes, the problem was always solved. Frequently, the guys ended up friends.
Also, how many of you have ever witnessed (or been involved in) a bar fight? I have never understood why the cops have to be called, arrests made, and charges filed. IMO, a fight between two men who are both willing participants is NOT assault. It is meerly field expedient conflict resolution.
I tend to think something should be written into the law which would prevent someone who willingly enters into a fight from sueing anybody if he happens to get his ass kicked. That should solve the problem of lawyer feeding.
Yes, in my younger days I got in a scrap or two. Sometimes I was the ass kicker, other times, the ass kicked. Back then no one seemed to need to tattle on the other guy to the teachers or cops whatever the case might have been.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
GreenScoutII
12-09-2009, 14:04
Sorry for the thread hijack.... I didn't mention anything about poisoned bullets....http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif
As for poisoned bullets, bad idea. The DA will find or invent something to charge you with.
AFA the airplane on the treadmill......
If the treadmill isn't powered, then it's not a treadmill, it's just a belt sitting still doing nothing. The prop on the plane will pull the plane forward down the treadmill, just like on a runway, and the plane would take off. The rolling of the wheels isn't going to make the treadmill move. Even if the tail of the plane were tied so the plane couldn't move, the wheels won't roll and the treadmill won't move.
If the treadmill IS powered, like a real treadmill should be, and the plane's prop is running for all it's worth, yet the plane is sitting still in relation to the ground, it's not going to fly. Airflow over & under the wings creates the lift, and the prop pulls the plane forward on the runway to generate the airflow over/under the wings. The wheels have nothing to do with it.
AFA poisoned bullets.....
No argument it's a bad idea. But with a typical poison, you can't get enough in a hollowpoint bullet to do anything. Ricin, however, is nasty stuff that only takes a speck, and if it gets into your body you're dead meat. Doesn't matter if it's inhaled, ingested, smoked, injected, whatever. Do some research on it.
Rondog, good explanations. I get ahead of myself sometimes and even forget to mention stuff. Good catch.
BTW, what does "AFA" mean?
If the treadmill IS powered, like a real treadmill should be, and the plane's prop is running for all it's worth, yet the plane is sitting still in relation to the ground, it's not going to fly. Airflow over & under the wings creates the lift, and the prop pulls the plane forward on the runway to generate the airflow over/under the wings. The wheels have nothing to do with it.
Yes, that is all true, except if the props are running for all it's worth, the plane WILL be moving forward, regardless of what the treadmill is doing, because the wheels are free spinning. Do you agree?
Yes, that is all true, except if the props are running for all it's worth, the plane WILL be moving forward, regardless of what the treadmill is doing, because the wheels are free spinning. Do you agree?
Not if the treadmill is running at the same speed. That's how I understand the myth, the treadmill is going the same speed as the forward motion of the plane, so the plane is essentially standing still, even though it's at takeoff power and the wheels are spinning.
In other words, if you were standing next to the plane while this was going on, and the plane isn't moving forward in relation to your position, it's not going to lift off.
Circuits
12-09-2009, 16:55
Yes, that is all true, except if the props are running for all it's worth, the plane WILL be moving forward, regardless of what the treadmill is doing, because the wheels are free spinning. Do you agree?
Flight has nothing to do with speed, but with airflow over the airfoil (wing, usually).
If a plane has a 90-knot stall speed, then facing it into a 90-knot wind will give it all the lift it needs to take off, even if it's sitting still at 0 groundspeed, with the engine off. Shortly after such a takeoff, though, drag would have the plane moving increasintly backwards, reducing its true airspeed, and depriving it of enough airflow to sustain flight.
The powerplant of an aircraft exists to counteract drag, and achieve/maintain an appropriate airspeed for lift and positive control.
Scale model tests of a treadmill scenario are grossly misrepresentative, because a model plane can easily have enough thrust to weight to fly without wings, and even without that much thrust, the propwash itself provides some airflow over the wings in a prop-forward engine configuration.
No matter how fast the treadmill is "going", if the airfoil is motionless, with no headwind, the only airflow over the wings is feed air for a pusher prop, or propwash for a tractor prop, and the plane ain't taking off unless that feed or wash air provides enough lift all by itself.
Flight has nothing to do with speed, but with airflow over the airfoil (wing, usually).
If a plane has a 90-knot stall speed, then facing it into a 90-knot wind will give it all the lift it needs to take off, even if it's sitting still at 0 groundspeed, with the engine off. Shortly after such a takeoff, though, drag would have the plane moving increasintly backwards, reducing its true airspeed, and depriving it of enough airflow to sustain flight.
The powerplant of an aircraft exists to counteract drag, and achieve/maintain an appropriate airspeed for lift and positive control.
Scale model tests of a treadmill scenario are grossly misrepresentative, because a model plane can easily have enough thrust to weight to fly without wings, and even without that much thrust, the propwash itself provides some airflow over the wings in a prop-forward engine configuration.
No matter how fast the treadmill is "going", if the airfoil is motionless, with no headwind, the only airflow over the wings is feed air for a pusher prop, or propwash for a tractor prop, and the plane ain't taking off unless that feed or wash air provides enough lift all by itself.
That's how I see it too.
Scale model tests of a treadmill scenario are grossly misrepresentative, because a model plane can easily have enough thrust to weight to fly without wings
LOL! Ever seen the videos of "flying lawnmowers"?
rhineoshott
12-09-2009, 17:03
Flight has nothing to do with speed, but with airflow over the airfoil (wing, usually).
If a plane has a 90-knot stall speed, then facing it into a 90-knot wind will give it all the lift it needs to take off, even if it's sitting still at 0 groundspeed, with the engine off. Shortly after such a takeoff, though, drag would have the plane moving increasintly backwards, reducing its true airspeed, and depriving it of enough airflow to sustain flight.
You can actually fly backwards (groundspeed) in a small plane if you have enough headwind.
Okay, let me try from a different angle.
The wheels on an airplane are free spinning. All they do is spin to reduce friction to allow the airplane to take off. The only time the wheels have any effect on the movement of the airplane is when the brakes are applied right?
When an airplane takes off, it achieves the proper speed by either being pushed by a jet, or pulled by a prop. The wheels in no way directly contribute to any forward motion of the airplane right?
If a free spinning wheel can not accelerate the plane, then they also can not decelerate the plane, so it won't matter how fast the treadmill is spinning; because all forward propulsion is provided by the props/jets, which are not effected by the treadmill at all.
It's really a trick question, because people picture how a standard passenger car would react with a treadmill, not an airplane.
To test this theory, one wouldn't even need to spend the money for a model airplane. They could just take a Co2 rocket car and launch it on a running tread mill. Just build a rig that would allow the car to be held at the bottom of the treadmill, and turn the tread mill on full speed. With the treadmill going full speed and the car not moving at all, you'd think that the treadmill would have an advantage, but it wouldn't. Once you punch that Co2 canister, that little balsawood car is going to fly right off the end of your treadmill and through your wall, because the force on the car is provided by the Co2 and not the wheels.
Someone please explain to me how the treadmill has an effect on the forward motion of the airplane when the wheels are free spinning.
wow how did it get to this.
okay, just so you all know, I am an airline pilot. I do this stuff every week (not off a treadmill mind you).
You must forget about wheels as you think of them on a vehicle. A car transfers it power through its tires to the ground. an airplane transfers it power through a propeller to push air. The wheels are simply there to reduce friction, give a piece of material that is easily changed out and provide a small amount of impact absorption on the "bad landing days"
With that in mind, think about the axle, it is in the center of the wheel, the wheel rotates around that axle, and your friction from the ground is now not direct against the axle but the friction is rotated at an angle.
In the problem with the treadmill, friction is negligent. even if it was not negligent, the airplane would still fly. as long as the tires were rated to the correct speed. ours are good to 164 knots ground speed. (about 188 mph)
the engine, whether turbine or piston produces thrust or power. A jet engine will push an airplane using thrust. basically the engine sucks in air, compresses it, burns it with fuel and pushes it out the back at a high speed pushing the airplane forward. wheels have nothing to do with this other than to make it easier for the plane to move forward.
The final answer to the question is THE AIRPLANE WILL FLY. what will happen on the sidelines will be the tires will be moving at twice their normal speed (call it 150MPH normally), so they would be rotating at 300 MPH. in real life they would separate more than likely with catastrophic results.
Airplanes require speed over the wings in order to fly. lets call it 120 mph to lift off the ground. that either requires a very strong wind blowing over the wings while the plane is stationary, or it requires forward movement of the wing through the air. either way lift is created.
well, as mixed up as all the info is, hopefully you understand that the tires have very little to do with the airplane actually flying other than to reduce friction.
Oh, looks like Mythbusters actually did do this. The plane took off without a problem. I didn't know they did this already until I looked it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YORCk1BN7QY&feature=related
The comments are funny because people still don't understand that there is no connection between the belt and the prop. I'll start another physics question in its own thread.
Not if the treadmill is running at the same speed. That's how I understand the myth, the treadmill is going the same speed as the forward motion of the plane, so the plane is essentially standing still, even though it's at takeoff power and the wheels are spinning.
In other words, if you were standing next to the plane while this was going on, and the plane isn't moving forward in relation to your position, it's not going to lift off.
not true
Flight has nothing to do with speed, but with airflow over the airfoil (wing, usually).
If a plane has a 90-knot stall speed, then facing it into a 90-knot wind will give it all the lift it needs to take off, even if it's sitting still at 0 groundspeed, with the engine off. Shortly after such a takeoff, though, drag would have the plane moving increasintly backwards, reducing its true airspeed, and depriving it of enough airflow to sustain flight.
The powerplant of an aircraft exists to counteract drag, and achieve/maintain an appropriate airspeed for lift and positive control.
Scale model tests of a treadmill scenario are grossly misrepresentative, because a model plane can easily have enough thrust to weight to fly without wings, and even without that much thrust, the propwash itself provides some airflow over the wings in a prop-forward engine configuration.
No matter how fast the treadmill is "going", if the airfoil is motionless, with no headwind, the only airflow over the wings is feed air for a pusher prop, or propwash for a tractor prop, and the plane ain't taking off unless that feed or wash air provides enough lift all by itself.
mostly correct, but the force of the treadmill on the tires is pretty much negligible compared to the thrust of an engine pushing air. no matter what the wheels are doing the airplane can roll because there are no gears. free spinning tires (with brake assemblies) rotating around an axle. the plane will fly.
wow how did it get to this.
The final answer to the question is THE AIRPLANE WILL FLY.
heh he beat me to it.
/agree sturtle... high five to sniper
lol, ok, I'll concede!
I want to see that Mythbusters episode so if anyone can find the full link, I'd be grateful.
lol, ok, I'll concede!
I want to see that Mythbusters episode so if anyone can find the full link, I'd be grateful.
it wasn't too bad. not exactly sure people will still fully believe with the tests they did, but for their budget it is as good as it will get.
it wasn't too bad. not exactly sure people will still fully believe with the tests they did, but for their budget it is as good as it will get.
Know if there is a link out there SNiper7, cause my googlefu is whack. I can find teasers but not the whole episode... Think we need a firemission...
ill have to look when i get on my laptop. this phone kinda sucks to search with
The link I posted is them doing the actual experiment. There are other links of them doing the experiment with a model on a treadmill. Try looking on their website,as they may have videos. Otherwise, Youtube is your best bet.
The link I posted is them doing the actual experiment. There are other links of them doing the experiment with a model on a treadmill. Try looking on their website,as they may have videos. Otherwise, Youtube is your best bet.
I saw those Sturlte... did you happen to read some of the comments below the youtube thingy? Without getting back into the whole arguement (HAHA) I would have to agree that the test wasn't done properly cause the plane still moved forward creating the lift. But it doesn't matter, Ive already conceded! HAHA. Have a good day.
Tim
That's what a lot of people said, but the plane moved forward because a treadmill on free spinning wheels won't stop a plane from moving forward.
So far this is the best real world analogy I've come up with to explain this. All it takes is a treadmill, and a red wagon.
Set the wagon onto the treadmill and turn it on full speed. The wagon is going to be pushed off the back end of the treadmill unless you hold it in place. Holding the wagon just enough to prevent it from falling off the back of the treadmill, have a friend lift the back end of the treadmill into air (the end the wagon is threatening to fall off of). The force of gravity is going to cause the wagon to roll down the treadmill, in the opposite direction that the belt is spinning. Thus illustrating that it doesn't matter how fast the belt is turning the wheels. Since they are free spinning, they will just spin even faster to compensate for the forward movement.
It is a similar concept to an open differential axle going around a turn. Kind of.
hmmm... I don't know. You win, lol. Good stuff. I like discussions like this.
I actually have a treadmill at home. I'm sure my daughter has a non-powered truck around the house that I could demonstrate this with. I'll look into it.
It's not about winning, and I certainly don't want to come across that way. I get very frustrated at this question, and it is mostly my inability to convince people (through analogy after analogy) to understand something in the exact same way that I do. Sorry for beating a dead horse about it.
No sir, you don't come across that way. That's just my way of bowing out. Not much else to say. I am hardheaded... I'd actually have to be in the plane to be convinced otherwise, lolol. I do understand the mentality, it's like me saying that you don't need a 30K trumpet in order to play the same music that you can on a 2K trumpet. Yeah, the more expensive one will feel a little better, etc, but iltimately, you should be able to play on the 2K one just as well.
To think I thought, “there was an 8 page discussion on poison bullets!?...awesome”
As far as explaining this one, that is tricky.
I will give it a go
Treadmill is moving the belt relative to the plane at X speed backwards
Planes wheels, if the plane is stationary, are spinning at X speed
Planes props will push/pull the plane forward at Y speed, (Y would be a range from just starting up to taking off)
Upon the start of the props turning the plane will move forward so long as the wheels free spin and drag of wheels is not involved in the equation.
The wheels will spin at X speed plus Y speed. The plane will only move at Y speed and the treadmill will continue to move backwards at X speed.
The wheels spin faster than the plane is moving
I think I just made it more complicated. Basically the wheels are acting as an intermediary, making it such that the treadmill and the plane body have nothing to do with each other.
In terms of poison bullets, they have the pepper powder paint balls. I could see that being handy in terms of a non-lethal option for cops who don’t want to carry two weapons, just add a special magazine, but you would still have to worry about the bullet casing around the pepper spray splashing everybody upon it impacting the ground.
Are there any documented cases of people being shot with tracer rounds?
don't know about tracers but I remember hearing about someone getting shot with those theromite (incendiary) rounds. Kids jacking off apparently, "accidently shot" their friend, ended up killing the guy (magnesium burned through cartoriod and the kids were too scared to take him to hospital). Now in jail for manslaughter. ... Think this was in central TX about 5 yrs ago... don't remember much else.
What is the difference between a tracer round and an incendiary round?
Not quite sure... From what I understand, a tracer is coated in a substance that will "glow" (burn off) during flight allowing you to track it's path. An incendiary round (depending on type) you won't see in flight and is just tipped with a sparking substance (like ash flint) so that when it strikes a hard object, it sparks and can start a fire. There are tons of different type of incendiary rounds. Some that go boom, some that don't.
Time chemical part burns, if lit by ignition or impact
Chemical used - one to produce light, one to produce high heat and fire
Location of chemical burned, i.e. in the back of the round where visible, or in a charge near the front, used for HE or Ignition.
Circuits
12-10-2009, 13:42
Tracer - the back of the bullet is packed with a slow-burning pyrotechnic compound, kinda similar to the guts of a highway road flare. The heat of the burning powder from firing lights off a "starter cap" packed over the compound in the back of the bullet, getting the flare effect started, and the flare compound burns for a couple seconds (both during flight, and after landing)
Incendiary - the nose of the bullet contains an impact-sensitive compound designed to create a hot, short flash of combustion on impact with something hard enough to set it off.
Tracer usually won't light things like fuel tanks on fire, unless it lodges in the tank, still burning, and lights up the fumes. Tracer can start grass fires, or light pools or piles of flammables on fire if it comes to rest nearby the fuel while still burning.
Incendiary is designed to set things on fire, especially when piercing fuel tanks, or impacting flammable materials.
Troublco
12-10-2009, 22:12
Good point... the way I would see it. Bullets are designed to kill, whether hunting human or animal. Poison also kills. While it is accepted that bullets kill, the common arguement for self defense is to wound in order to cause the assailant to "cease and desist", not kill them. That's just an accepted happenstance when it happens. If one puts posion on top of a bullet might be considered overkill since it would be said you were intentionally TRYING to kill and thus premeditated? ... I don't know. Sounds good to me.
I was always told that you never shoot to wound. If you fear for your life (or a family member's, or someone else) and the situation is so serious that you have to use a gun, you use it for what it was intended for. If all you do is shoot to wound someone, you must not have been in such desperate straits that a firearm was necessary ("Excessive Force") and your butt is going to get sued big time. Personally, I don't want a live criminal who can sue me later. If they're doing something so serious that I am compelled to use a firearm to defend me or mine, I don't think trying to wound them would be appropriate.
I don't think poison would be necessary if you have proper shot placement.
Gun Control means never having to say you missed.
To think I thought, “there was an 8 page discussion on poison bullets!?...awesome”
As far as explaining this one, that is tricky.
I will give it a go
Treadmill is moving the belt relative to the plane at X speed backwards
Planes wheels, if the plane is stationary, are spinning at X speed
Planes props will push/pull the plane forward at Y speed, (Y would be a range from just starting up to taking off)
Upon the start of the props turning the plane will move forward so long as the wheels free spin and drag of wheels is not involved in the equation.
The wheels will spin at X speed plus Y speed. The plane will only move at Y speed and the treadmill will continue to move backwards at X speed.
The wheels spin faster than the plane is moving
I think I just made it more complicated. Basically the wheels are acting as an intermediary, making it such that the treadmill and the plane body have nothing to do with each other.
In terms of poison bullets, they have the pepper powder paint balls. I could see that being handy in terms of a non-lethal option for cops who don’t want to carry two weapons, just add a special magazine, but you would still have to worry about the bullet casing around the pepper spray splashing everybody upon it impacting the ground.
just remember airplanes fly based on airspeed. groundspeed is what the wheels will turn at. an airplane can fly at 0 groundspeed, negative groundspeed, but never at 0 airspeed or negative airspeed.
the wheels/tires are there to reduce friction and make for an easier way for maintenance to change parts out.
theGinsue
12-10-2009, 23:05
If all you do is shoot to wound someone, you must not have been in such desperate straits that a firearm was necessary ("Excessive Force") and your butt is going to get sued big time. Personally, I don't want a live criminal who can sue me later.
It's not getting sued by a BG that I'm concerned with. I'd be concerned with the BG coming back to finish the harm they intended to do to me in the first place.
ChunkyMonkey
12-11-2009, 01:27
I read the first page which mentions poisoned hollow points, darts and arrows. PRETTY colorful I thought. I Skipped ahead to the last page.. now you guys are talking about Airplane, 0 air speed and treadmill. ((#^$&%#$@ ???)
Bah.. I ll catch up with the rest over the weekend. [ROFL1][ROFL2]
I was always told that you never shoot to wound. If you fear for your life (or a family member's, or someone else) and the situation is so serious that you have to use a gun, you use it for what it was intended for. If all you do is shoot to wound someone, you must not have been in such desperate straits that a firearm was necessary ("Excessive Force") and your butt is going to get sued big time. Personally, I don't want a live criminal who can sue me later. If they're doing something so serious that I am compelled to use a firearm to defend me or mine, I don't think trying to wound them would be appropriate.
I don't think poison would be necessary if you have proper shot placement.
Gun Control means never having to say you missed.
Rgr Troublco, I agree with you. You do not shoot to wound in a life threatening situation, you shoot to kill. I was just saying that a prosecutor or something could make teh argument that posion filled bullets could be construed as premeditated murder instead of just a regular bullet.
Good Stuff Foxtrot.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.