.., painted lead shot, from the same bag, three different colors. He then loaded it into a regular shotshell load in three layers ..... one color for the bottom third of the shot column, one third for the middle, and one third at the top ... each layer a different color. He then fired the loads (more than one) into a tank of water. (He paused to remind me that water will NOT deform a lead shot pellet when fired into it). Then, he recovered the pellets and segregated them by color. He said it was VERY obvious that the pellets that were on the bottom of the load were much more deformed than the one-third layer above it, and that the top third were the least deformed. SRH
Wonderful and non-quantified. It's
VERY obvious to me that it was well intended and
VERY obvious that it must have been fun. It is also
VERY obvious that some real science was thot about but it's
VERY obvious that it was not realized. I think it's
VERY obvious that it is necessary for quantifiable data be obtained and usually upon analysis that makes some justifiable conclusions
VERY obvious.
Aside from a number of other aspects of the methodology that I'd be curious about, it's
VERY obvious to me that I would like to know if post-shooting, after the pellets were segregated on the basis of the paint color was the paint removed and the condition of the pellets assessed (altho
VERY obviously not quantifiably) or was the painted surface the subject of the findings?
inquiring minds and all that, y'know
And to the person that thinks the shape of a mass affects its inertia - I'll agree that you are not ignorant since that contention in the light of the 21stCentury (really, the 17thCentury) is just stupid.
Sir Isaac Newton also observed this:
"I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people."
have another day
Dr.WtS