RE: Does Kinetic Energy = Penetration?
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And seeing that a foam target does not realistically emulate a game animal, I would be interested to see what the results of the small diameter light weight vs small diameter heavy weight in large game looked like. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
I would be interested to see that myself. That was the one thing that stuck out as an invalid arguement where this discussion was concerned.
On another note one thing that was not mentioned(or at least I didn't see it) is the fact while aluminums may absorb more of a bows energy as it comes off the riser it immediately starts giving it away with oscilations back and forth all the way down the course. I personally don't shoot deer at 1 ft. so an arrow that is flexing and osciallating like an aluminum shaft does is going to give away a much larger portion of it's stored energy than and arrow that doesn't oscilate or flex as much. Also, aluminums shafts "flex" really bad on impact unlike carbons. I am no engineer here but I think I understand that when an arrow hits an object and the mid section of the arrow flexes in a direction that is not in the linear plane in which it is traveling, at that point KE turns into to momentum, however it is momentum that has a different vector than the arrows. Basically the arrow tries to bend rather than penetrate and by bending or flexing it again gives away KE. The bottom line is that aluminum is a much less efficient material than carbon. Carbon allows you to give up the weight, go with the speed, get the same results with better yarage estimation.
Protect your hunting rights, "Spay or neuter a liberal."