I want to hijack this thread for a moment and offer my sincerest apologies to Sylvan for my overeaction to his earlier comments, because it is obvious that he is correct in his assertions regarding physics and my observations.

But, my observations were still accurate. After some thinking and some input from an industry engineer I think I have found where I inadvertantly slipped an orange in an attempted apples to apples comparison.

When making and weighing the arrows I used for my testing I used ACC hyperspeeds for the 340-360 grain arrows (in 5 grain increments) using nibb points which have a very stiff dynamic spine. For arrow just heavier than these (365-400) I used Bemans ICS which had the needed weights, but were dramtically underspined or the application. I believe because of the spine differences, the heavier, weaker arrows were receiving less of the bows energy resulting in inordinantly slower speeds, while the lighter stifer arrows were able to receive maximal energy from the bow resulting in SLIGHTLY higher KE #'s for the lighter arrows. If the heavier arrows had been adequate in spine they would have shown better speeds and had the expected higher KE than the lighter arrows.

BTW, Sylvan, I pretty much agree with your assessment of the whole KE vs M debate. I'm not sure but I think somewhere in one of the previous thread mentioned I only use the light arrows to play with in front of the chronograph, and choose to hunt with fairly heavy slow arrows.

Arthur P: That's quite a claim. Care to back it up with some calculations. How much is the lions share and how did you calculate it?

A rectangle has 2 parameters. Its length and its width. From these 2 parameters you can calculate area and perimeter. Area = length x width. Perimeter = 2 x (length + width). So with regard to a rectangle which is more important area or perimeter? To me area and perimeter are just 2 different things. One is square feet and the other is lineal feet. It doesn't make sense to say one is more important than the other but according to the logic of Arthur and Straightarrow, AREA is defininately more imporant than PERIMETER. Why? Because when you increase the rectangles length and/or width "the percentage increase in perimeter is very small compared to the percentage increase in area." Now oviously I have substitued perimeter and area for ke and momentum but the analogy is pretty clear. If it makes sense to you that AREA is more important than PERIMETER then I guess you will also conclude that MOMENTUM which is POUND-SECONDS is more important than KE which is FOOT-POUNDS. This logic is just simply wrong! Momentum and ke are simply mathmatical results of the paramters velocity and mass, just like area and perimeter are simply mathmatical results of the parameters length and width. BTW, nobody answered why KE isn't more important because as you increase draw weight the percentage increase in KE is greater than the percentage increase in momentum. Or how is it that if we keep the velocity equal they both increase at the same rate?

There I go again. I know this isn't going anywhere but I can't help myself. Please moderators, save me from myself and lock this thread!!!!!

Thank you 500 fps. I sincerely appreciate your kind words!!!!

Now that was a cheap shot! I never suggested any such thing. I carefully explained why momentum is more important than KE in my last response, and you chose not to answer that.

Straightarrow, I didn't say that you said this or even suggested it. I said that the logic you and Artur are using when applied to the rectangle results in this conclusion. And it does! I think makeing a point by use of analogy is a pretty common form of debate. I'm actually suprised you were offended but because you were then I appollogize. Like I said before, I appreciate the way you have discussed these issues.

[/quote]I always like the way walks with a gimp puts things! I really think its time to let this thread die. We are all going in circles and I don't think it's benefitting anyone at this point. I would like to thank everyone for the spirited conversation and if I have offended anyone I do sincerely appollogize.

I think you just like to argue, Sylvan. I'm very tired of it so this is my last post on this thread. But I'll leave you with a few closing thoughts.

Why are bows more efficient with heavier arrows (within reason)? Or, to put it another way, why do heavier arrows come off the bow with more energy than light ones? Why do they retain their speed and energy better, downrange? What keeps arrows going in a given direction instead of letting rhem wander back and forth at random? What keeps them from bouncing off and deflecting onto an entirely different direction of flight when they hit the animal?

Why can a a heavy arrow shot from a relatively inefficient and/or low draw weight bow, with low KE and high momentum, penetrate every bit as well as an arrow with high KE and low momentum? I've been eagerly awaiting your input on that question for many days now! You've been very adroit at avoiding the issue. I know why, too. It's because you simply can not explain it without acknowledging the pure fact that momentum is a better indicator of penetration potential than KE is.

Period. End of discussion.

I wasn't offended, but my logic isn't anywhere near your portrayal. My logic showed how I could decrease KE and yet increase penetration potential in a live animal by increasing momentum. This is 6 million miles (no exageration) from what you suggested. Responding to my assertion by giving an example that is competely and totally unlike what we're talking about, is a cheap shot.

heh..don't think I've EVER seen a 24 page thread over here...

You can def tell it's the off season...

Hey, Jeff's still alive...

Bring out your dead...bing!, Bring out your dead...bing!