Investigating BioVALs BB Claims

[ujiro]

How deep was each hole.

[Styrak]

Originally Posted by Easy

Impact deformed plastic G&G bb creates a larger hole than the BBBMAX.

Also it seems that the forces acting on the plastic G&G bb have caused it to lose some surface material.

BBBMAX is clean through. No deformation and small hole.

Of course there's no deformation and a smaller hole, that's already been proven as a property of the BBMax BB's - no deformation.
Was there a point to that?

[ujiro]

Originally Posted by Styrak

Of course there's no deformation and a smaller hole, that's already been proven as a property of the BBMax BB's - no deformation.
Was there a point to that?

That's what I was going for. I want to know the depth of each. Obviously the BBBMax will yield a very significantly deeper hole.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by ujiro

Well, for one we have no idea where that image came from.
And I would not simply trust one guy who shot his arm with each type of BB. If you want to use proof like that, then its gotta be a study with different people being shot multiple times. One guy one time does not prove anything.

And I do not agree with your simplified equation there. Where are you getting all of this, may I ask?

LOL. You are an authority in terminal balistics?

The theory of Martel [Kneubuehl 1999]:

Ed = Cv*V

The size of the inflicted area is directly proportional to the dissipated energy Ed. Based on an analysis of a number of experiments a significant correlation between the amount of devitalised tissue and dissipated kinetic energy
(Ed) has been proved [Berlin et al. 1976 and 1979, Janzon and Seeman 1985, Janzon 1988, Tikka 1989, Janzon 2004]. Ed has also been called “down-track” energy [Coupland 2000].

Balistic Science is not an opinion it is fact. The kind of facts tha Scarecrow likes.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by ujiro

That's what I was going for. I want to know the depth of each. Obviously the BBBMax will yield a very significantly deeper hole.

Obviously, you need to brush up on your physics.


At equal velocities the MASS of the bb is what counts and nothing else.

Heavier DIGICOMs (0.42g) and the G&G (0.28g) penetrate more than the BBBMAX (0.27g).

High school PHYSICS and not some BBBMAX super powers.

[MikeG]

Ujiro, Easy's last posts are sourced in the controversial Levante Labs study that has been discussed in this thread.

Easy, as per this paper: https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1

Ed = Cv * V is an equation for tissue PENETRATION and is therefore inapplicable to this situation.

I'd also like to note that unlike the paper I just linked to, the Levante Labs study has zero references. I'm just lucky that a google search was able to turn up more information about that equation or we would still be scratching our heads about where that equation came from.

[ujiro]

Originally Posted by Easy

LOL. You are an authority in terminal balistics?

The theory of Martel [Kneubuehl 1999]:

Ed = Cv*V

The size of the inflicted area is directly proportional to the dissipated energy Ed. Based on an analysis of a number of experiments a significant correlation between the amount of devitalised tissue and dissipated kinetic energy
(Ed) has been proved [Berlin et al. 1976 and 1979, Janzon and Seeman 1985, Janzon 1988, Tikka 1989, Janzon 2004]. Ed has also been called “down-track” energy [Coupland 2000].

Balistic Science is not an opinion it is fact. The kind of facts tha Scarecrow likes.

I never proclaimed to be. Please source stuff when you post it though, it would be nice to know where you are getting things from. I can write long things like that, but it means nothing if you don't cite what the hell your taking it from. Thanks. Also, no need to be a douche bag about things. Realize you just posted like 6 longs posts with this random, unsourced information. Looks funny.

Originally Posted by Easy

Obviously, you need to brush up on your physics.


At equal velocities the MASS of the bb is what counts and nothing else.

Heavier DIGICOMs (0.42g) and the G&G (0.28g) penetrat more than the BBBMAX (0.27g).

High school PHYSICS and not some BBBMAX super powers.

Okay... So they are all travelling at equal velocities? Then yes, congrats. High school physics was proven! 3 objects moving at equal velocities but different masses will have different impacts! The heaviest one will do the most damage! Thanks, I know Ek=0.5m*u^2. What does that prove, them all moving at equal velocities, when they are different mass. It proves the equation for kinetic energy. Nothing else. What would be useful is doing a test with all 3 BBs at the exact same muzzle energy. Not velocity. A 0.42g BB moving at 400fps is not the same as a 0.27g or 0.28g BB moving at 400fps.. It has significantly larger energy.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Ujiro, Easy's last posts are sourced in the controversial Levante Labs study that has been discussed in this thread.

Easy, as per this paper: https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1

Ed = Cv * V is an equation for tissue PENETRATION and is therefore inapplicable to this situation.

I'd also like to note that unlike the paper I just linked to, the Levante Labs study has zero references. I'm just lucky that a google search was able to turn up more information about that equation or we would still be scratching our heads about where that equation came from.

The formula shows a clear correlation between the Energy and Wounds.

Whether there is penetration or not this depends solely on the balistics of the event.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Easy

The formula shows a clear correlation between the Energy and Wounds.

Whether there is penetration or not this depends solely on the balistics of the event.

Easy, a non-penetrating impact (where the BB bounces off the skin) has entirely different physics than a penetrating impact (where the BB enters the body and tears flesh.)

If we consider a penetrating wound to be entirely inelastic (meaning that all of the kinetic energy of the BB is expended moving and tearing flesh), then the Ed = Cv * V makes perfect sense. If the BB is somewhat elastic and bounces off the skin, it still retains significant energy that was not transferred to wounding, which that formula has no terms for. Please don't misapply the equation as LL has in their study.

Also, Easy, what is your motivation in this discussion? Are you just a fan of Bioval? Are you an employee?

[Easy]

Originally Posted by ujiro

Thanks. Also, no need to be a douche bag about things. Realize you just posted like 6 longs posts with this random, unsourced information. Looks funny.

Sorry didn't mean to be offensive.

Most of this thread on BBBMAX is based on assumptions, speculation and attributing special powers to a bb and even a manufacturer (BB Bastard) who is using all his daily strength to try and defame the BBBMAX. LOL.

Bioval must be happy that this controversy created by is single handedly putting the brand name out there.

The funny thing is that the only "evidence" presented such as pictures, citations to Levante Labs or even balistic science papers are judged as unapplicable, controversial, unacceptable bla bla.

So what the h&ll would be acceptable?! I know:

... a little facetious now ...

A Jet Propulsion Laboratory Team of Scientists, escorted by 1 lawyer and public notary, actually travelling to Bioval to buy a bag of BBBMAX. Once the origin of the bbs is certified they will then execute the tests in their labs at NASA. The tests will be transmitted live on the web and on CCTV. Present will be a team of lawyers and public notaries to certify the proceedure.

THen again Bioval may be able to corrupt them all and intercept the transmissions and replacing them with something more acceptable.

[ujiro]

LOL! Yeah that would be believable. But you never know.. I heard Bioval has agents... everywhere.... :P. And no worries man.

Anyways, I do not intend to say they are applicable. They just only give part of the information. Just showing the cross section of the hole, not depth, etc.

But you are right. All of this really worked out well for Bioval. I am dying to try these out now just to see what all the fuss is about.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Easy, a non-penetrating impact (where the BB bounces off the skin) has entirely different physics than a penetrating impact (where the BB enters the body and tears flesh.)

If we consider a penetrating wound to be entirely inelastic (meaning that all of the kinetic energy of the BB is expended moving and tearing flesh), then the Ed = Cv * V makes perfect sense. If the BB is somewhat elastic and bounces off the skin, it still retains significant energy that was not transferred to wounding, which that formula has no terms for. Please don't misapply the equation as LL has in their study.

Also, Easy, what is your motivation in this discussion? Are you just a fan of Bioval? Are you an employee?

What is the BB Bastards motivation in this discussion?
What is your motivation in this discussion?
What is anybody's motivation on any forum?

Please stop telling me what to do it smacks of arrogance and that is a no no on forums.

That formula is the closest thing we have in airsoft to shedding some light on this issue. Again it doesn’t matter if there is penetration or not. It doesn’t matter if the bb rebounds back.

What interests us is the correlation on either side of that formula.

AND it is not difficult to use that formula to derive one that is more in tune to our application. Then it would need to be proved/disproved.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by Easy

Most of this thread on BBBMAX is based on assumptions, speculation and attributing special powers to a bb and even a manufacturer (BB Bastard) who is using all his daily strength to try and defame the BBBMAX. LOL.

...

The funny thing is that the only "evidence" presented such as pictures, citations to Levante Labs or even balistic science papers are judged as unapplicable, controversial, unacceptable bla bla.

Excuse me, but you and Levante Labs blatantly misused the equation stated earlier in that ballistics paper I referenced. I'll say it once again:

Ed = Cv * V is applicable to PENETRATING WOUNDS
While it probably applies perfectly well to the clay test in the LL study, in airsoft, your BBs should never penetrate other players, therefore, the equation is entirely irrelevant. If you don't believe me, please go read about inelastic processes vs. elastic processes on Wikipedia. If the BB bounces back, then some energy is conserved and must, at the very least be subtracted as such:

Ed = (Cv * V) - Er (where Er is retained energy)

But as we have no source for such a equation, it would have to be experimentally verified.


I don't appreciate that you are implying there exists some kind of bias amongst us asking questions about the BBBMAX. The bottom line is that these BBs are significantly different from what has traditionally been used in our sport and some of us believe that it is worthwhile to examine the safety, especially since there is an absence of any credible information. Note that other people are discussing carrying out real tests in the future to determine whether these BBs are truly as safe as the unsourced, unreferenced Levante Labs report would have us believe.

My personal interest in this discussion: I run a airsoft review blog. I want to write accurate articles that are interesting and relevant to my readers.

In any case, I'm done trying to reason with you for the night.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Excuse me, but you and Levante Labs blatantly misused the equation stated earlier in that ballistics paper I referenced. I'll say it once again:

Ed = Cv * V is applicable to PENETRATING WOUNDS
In airsoft, your BBs should never penetrate other players, therefore, the equation is entirely irrelevant. If you don't believe me, please go read about inelastic processes vs. elastic processes on Wikipedia. If the BB bounces back, then some energy is conserved and must, at the very least be subtracted as such:

Ed - Er = Cv * V (where Er is retained energy)

But as we have no source for such a equation, it would have to be experimentally verified.


I don't appreciate that you are implying there exists some kind of bias amongst us asking questions about the BBBMAX. The bottom line is that these BBs are significantly different from what has traditionally been used in our sport and some of use believe that it is worthwhile to examine the safety, especially since there is an absence of any credible information. Note that other people are discussing carrying out real tests in the future to determine whether these BBs are truly as safe as the unsourced, unreferenced Levante Labs report would have us believe.

My personal interest in this discussion: I run a airsoft review blog. I want to write accurate articles that area interesting and relevant to my readers.

Reality check. You asked me what my motivation was? I asked what yours is.

I am not implying anything. Are you?

I hope the "real test" (lol) will soon be published but i suspect that they will also be regarded with suspecion.

The formula is concrete. Your opinion of the formula is just opinion.

[MikeG]

Originally Posted by MikeG

My personal interest in this discussion: I run a airsoft review blog. I want to write accurate articles that are interesting and relevant to my readers.

Originally Posted by Easy

Reality check. You asked me what my motivation was? I asked what yours is.

I am not implying anything. Are you?

I hope the "real test" (lol) will soon be published but i suspect that they will also be regarded with suspecion.

The formula is concrete. Your opinion of the formula is just opinion.

Sigh. I would appreciate it if you read everything I wrote as I have been with your posts.

Ed = Cv * V
Ed is 'Deposited Energy'. V is the volume of the PERMANENT hole caused by the projectile. If there is no permanent hole, this equation does. not. apply.

My source is this paper: https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1 (Wound ballistic simulation:
Assessment of the legitimacy of law enforcement firearms
ammunition by means of wound ballistic simulation
Jorma Jussila - 2005)

Anyway, I hope that the others monitoring this discussion will understand what I'm trying to get at, since you are being absolutely unreasonable. Good night.