Rifle: A machine rated in horsepower

Get a grip guys and hold on as tight as you can.

552273HP unless I'm wrong again.

Which is entirely possible.

Actually Bill, I discussed this very thing while on the phone with Vibe today. I was concerned about my earlier supposition that the barrel length had nothing to do with the calculation. That was not a correct supposition. Barrel length means a lot and that's why he was estimating it.

Unless I've learned nothing, or somehow there's more to the story, HP would be inversely proportional to the barrel length and time used to generate the energy, or the distance and time used to stop it. Yes?

552,273 Horsepower! Have you guys finally gone over the edge or around the bend? Get a grip and hold on real tight because you are losing it. This is not launching the Space Shuttle or powering and aircraft carrier. It it is but a pebble.

The term foot pounds is just that (feet x pounds) and 550 foot pounds per second or 3300 foot pound per minute = 1 horsepower.

I just can't deal with this anymore.

Concho Bill
 
OK OK, you'se guys have surpassed me with the math........I still need a couple of clarifications here :)


So in other words if one were to somehow gear down a 300WinMag it would really lift 550lbX4000 or 2,220,000lb one foot in one second? ONE 300WinMag round?

A 300WinMag round generates enough energy to lift over 2 million pounds over the course of one second?



Put it in simple terms for me.......am I WRONG too?????
Unless I'm really off base still as well Al, Yes, we are wrong.


I am absolutely open to the guys who have other opinions on this at this point and believe me, they've got me just hoping I've learned my lesson.

At this point, I'm only making new posts in hope that my answers are now correct (or in the ball park) and that if they are not, I learn what it still is I'm missing.

A good ole plain english explanation seems to carry more weight. It's interesting eh.

Again Al, that was my guess putting the numbers into Vibes example above. If Vibe were here to correct you now, I think what he would say is you are imparting enough energy in the steel plate to do that much work IF IF IF IF IF you imparted that energy over one second. IN this example, the time is getting really slight because the bullet stops in 1/4" (or 1/2 or whatever it was above). 1/4 I think.

I did the time calculation (estimate) and you could basically say that if Vibes 1.4 millisecond time was correct, and it is pretty darn close with 3Kfps and 26" bbl. Then the time you are using to take the energy back out of the bullet is 1.4 / 26" * .25" = .013 milliseconds. =.000013 seconds.

So you can see, the HP number becomes inversely proportional to the time, despite the fact that the energy we are dealing with is a "constant".

Again, someone chime in if I'm off base. Bill, I see you've posted that you seem to still prefer my first examples. I gotta tell you guys, even if I was right at this point, it matters not because I've been disuaded from my original point of view and either Vibe's really good, or he's really good. If he's really good at fooling me, then it worked because I am seeing the simplicity of his example now, even if it is wrong, it sure seems ok to me.

ROFLMAO guys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No Al.

If you want to say it like that (how much weight will it lift in one second) then yes, it would lift 2.2 million lbs if the bullet pushed for 1 second.

However, if it pushes for only .000013 seconds, it will lift 28.86 pounds one foot.

Note....... Al, once you multiply by seconds, you have to remove it from the result. Now it's just how much weight and how far. No time is involved, though you could calculate it if you were really a sick pup.

Hows that Bill?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No Al.

If you want to say it like that (how much weight will it lift in one second) then yes, it would lift 2.2 million lbs if the bullet pushed for 1 second.

However, if it pushes for only .000013 seconds, it will lift 28.86 pounds one foot.

Note....... Al, once you multiply by seconds, you have to remove it from the result. Now it's just how much weight and how far. No time is involved, though you could calculate it if you were really a sick pup.

Hows that Bill?


If this is true (which has been MY contention all along) then the bullet really only generates a fraction of a horsepower........ I don't NEED the math, I can do it but I'd have to drag out my books and that's 'waaayyyy too much hassle.

What you just stated in this post 4mesh is what I believe to be true.....IF IF IF the 300WinMag case would SUSTAIN it's level of out put for a full second then and only then would it produce "4000 HP".


THAT SAID........ if vibe is saying that the 300WM actually is producing the horses then it follows that if one could "capture the light'ning in a bottle" and parse it out over a seconds time . . . . . THEN (ignoring inertial, heat, hysteresis, etc losses) . . . . . . the liddle barsti'd WOULD BE CAPABLE of lifting over 2 MILLION pounds....


IF I'M WRONG and that liddle wad of nitrocellulose really does contain that much energy then I've got to re-think some of my mostest basic tenets regarding energy transfer! And that little Chinaman who sucked the ocean through a drinking straw had NUTTIN' on the venerable 300winnie!

I've found that a nice puree is the easiest way to down old Corvus Commonensus..... cold, with lots of lemon and cod liver oil.

Otherwise the feathers get all stopped up at the entrance to my larynx....


BTDT :D

hacked for days.....

al
 
4mesh my crow eating friend,

Unless you really want to eat a crow, you don't have to. You were right in your post 12 on page one. It really is that simple.:)

Consider this: In order to keep that kind of pressure on a bullet for one second you would need a much bigger cartridge and a much longer barrel.:)

As big as it is, it is only a 300 Magnum and it will only do so much.

Concho Bill
 
Last edited:
Vibe,

Using your method, I have another problem for you to consider:

A 210 grain bullet strikes an immovable block of hardened steel at 3000 feet per second and makes a cavity 1/4" deep and drops to the ground. How much horsepower is required to slow the bullet to a full stop in 1/4"?

Concho Bill
210 grain * 1 pound/7000 grain * 1 slug/32 pounds = 0.0009375 Slug
(3000ft/sec)^2=9000000 ft^2/Sec^2

1/2MV^2= 1/2*0.0009375 *9000000 Slug-ft/sec^2 -ft

1/2MV^2= 4218.75 ft-lbs energy

Energy in chamber = 0
Energy at muzzle = 4218.75

(Energy at muzzle)-(Energy in chamber) = 4218.75 ft-lbs = work done

How much time did it take to do the work?

Up to this point everything is the same...just opposite in direction, since we are losing energy to the block.

Time here is figured the same.
Ave Vel during decel is 1500 ft/sec -
distace traveled = 0.020833333 ft
0.020833333/1500=1.38889E-05 sec

4218.75/1.38889E-05 = 303750000 ft-lbs/sec

303750000/550=552,272.7 HP

But this is probably a good time to mention that what we see in this example is why Lasers can cut stuff. For a given amount of energy inputed into a laser tube, the shorter the pulse, the more Power it has. You can get the same amount of light from a WalMart flashlight, but focused and in very short pulses that same amount of light can cut steel.

As far as the bullet lifting anything...Nah..Not really. In completely inelastic collisions, Energy is not conserved...but momentum is.
So
if (m) is the mass of the bullet, and (V)is the velocity
and (M) in the mass of the target (that is free to move afterwards)
then (v) will be the final velocity after the impact.
The equation is this

mV=(M+m)v

Then if you take
1/2(M+m)v^2 = (M+m)gH

H=((v^2)/2)/g
v = Sqrt(2gH)

You have the beginings for calculating the results of the balistic pendulum.

:D :D :D :D :D :D
 
210 grain Bullet. = .03 Lbs.
Launched at 3000 FPS

Muzzle pointed vertically and plumb. Firing straight up. Firing in a vacuum.

.03x3000=90 Ft Lbs per second of momentum created.

Time already factored by the muzzle velocity. (3,000 feet per second)

90/550 = 0.1636HP

This is the right answer. Everything else fuzzy thinking.:)
Life is good when your right.

Concho Bill
 
Last edited:
This is the right answer. Everything else fuzzy thinking.:)
Life is good when your right.

Concho Bill
Momentum has the terms MV = (Slug)(ft/sec).........No pounds here

(90 Slug-ft/sec)/(550 Slug ft^2/sec^2) = 0.1636 ft/sec
Looks like some sort of Velocity term to me instead of HP.
 
Bill, Al,

Please send me your addresses. I make this really good poultry seasoning and it works on the raw bird as well as cooked! :D:D You need to let me know how many crows yer having for dinner though so I can send the right amount. It takes about 200 grams of seasoning for each bird (give or take). Just tell me how many birds and I'll try to do the math on this end as another excersize! I been having rather a lot of it lately though so you may want to act quick before I run out! :D:D

It's funny thinking about it, all this pounds, slugs, feet crap and here I am a 1K shooter who can say honestly, without converting, I could not tell you how many grains of powder I shot in any gun at any time last year! I can tell ya how many grams though!

I am laugh'n myself to tears on this cause I know where yeeer com'n from.

Al, send the PM (plain english explanation one) to vibe. Have him take a look at that and see if I'm even close on my analogies. I think they are now. I think it explains where the numbers come from a good bit better than this thread. Vibe, IF it's in the ball park, please post it. I didn't because I thought this was over and didn't want You to have to waste any more time on math problems to disprove any mistakes in it, should there be any.

Vibe, 552,272.7, I say 552,273! I'll accept that! I think I'm finally get'n it! Did you think it would ever happen? :D:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vibe, 552,272.7, I say 552,273! I'll accept that! I think I'm finally get'n it! Did you think it would ever happen? :D:D

Never had any doubts about it...(As to when it would happen...well I was startin' to worry about that part. :D)
 
I'm just gonna remove some of the confusing stuff I said at the top which was addressing the different ways Vibe was trying to separate the calculations. Reading this over again, saying those things will confuse someone as much as the calculations did me.

So this is a slightly corrected version of that attempt. I sure hope it's understandable now.

Here's the PM I sent to Al to Attempt to say in plain english why Vibe is CORRECT.

Howdy Al.

I'm assuming that at this point, you and Bill are thinking I've hit my head pretty hard. I'll be honest and say I thought through all of this that Vibe was actually trying to trick me with some hidden misnomer and that he really knew all along I was right and he was wrong. Then he just skirted my questions to make me attempt to find a new way to ask the same thing.

Well, that wasn't the case. He genuinely was giving me all the info I needed, I just wasn't catching it. Kinda like trying to explain something that's beyond the understanding of a persons math, and they can't grasp what is being said. Yes, it's all there. No I could not see it.

Here's the mistakes I made that make this difficult to understand.

First. I tried to use simple numbers like 3k fps. Then used assumptions on that which were rough estimates good enough for our purpose. Things like, MV = 3000fps, and then bullet travels 3000'. These two assumptions were contradictory when considering real world physics.

YES, we HAVE to have acceleration (accurately) and time in barrel (accurately). Without these, the vast majority of the work number is lost or at least bogus.

Think like this. We cannot propel a bullet to 3000 fps, and then have it travel ONLY 3000' in one second. It would have to hit something at the 3000' point to stop it.

When we define work, it is timeless. It is only pounds over feet. The work is against gravity. Trouble is, if you do that work in such a time that gravity can't stop the bullet at the 3000' point, then the bullet still contains energy. That energy needs accounted for. I was ignoring that energy.

Vibe did somewhere tell a rough estimate of how far the bullet would travel straight up, in a lossless atmosphere and all that. It was 26.6 miles I think. Don't quote me there but 26.x for sure. So, if we take 26.6*5280=140448 feet. Now, we have 4213 ft lbs of energy (potential, if it falls back to earth) 140448*.03=4213. THIS is the total energy if we want to "cheat" as I did and use how far it will go to calculate ft/lbs. See, we have to remove the "per sec" from the results and that can't be done while the bullet is still moving or contains energy.

Think of it like this.

Kinetic energy is inside the bullet because it's moving at some velocity and has mass. Mass x V^2 = kinetic energy.
Potential energy is how far above the ground the bullet is times how much it weighs. Weight x distance = potential energy.

As the bullet travels skyward, it looses kinetic energy, and gains a potential energy. All of that muzzle energy needs accounted for if we expect to come up with a horsepower number.

Weight includes gravity. Mass does not. That's why mass needs V squared... What confused me is that he was separating the two calculations or doing it all as MV^2 and that threw me for a loop. (using the two methods depending upon my questions)

If we expect to use feet traveled to estimate how much energy is in a bullet as I was doing, then we have to WAIT longer than the 1 second for nature (gravity) to pull all that Kinetic energy out of the bullet, and replace it with Potential energy (height above the ground). When the bullet reaches 26.6 miles, then we can say pounds times feet = foot pounds. Until it stops, we still have seconds in there!

That is where I was making my mistake. I wasn't letting the bullet come to rest. Vibe and I were not on the same wavelength with why he was so damn interested in the residual energy. It was I who was wrong on that and was blind to not see the other energy was in there. Funny part was, I can remember thinking really early on about how the physics did not work on the 3000 feet lift, and blindly just accepting that as gravity is already in there and that's it.

So, when the bullet gets launched, and we decide to stop pulling energy out at 3000 feet high, we need to also consider how much higher that bullet is gonna go.
 
Help me find any errors with this methodology (using metric units and expressing power in terms of Newtons*Meters/Seconds) :

210 grains = .129 Newtons

26 inch barrel = 0.661 Meters

Time to reach end of bbl = 0.0017 seconds (estimated)

Watts = 0.129*0.661/0.0017 = 50.16 Watts

Since roughly 745 Watts = 1HP,

50.16 Watts = 0.0673 Horsepower


Seriously, I don't see the error in this logic (not saying there isn't any, just that it's not obvious to me).

SteveM.

My example above is just a "snapshot" of the time that the bullet is in the barrel. It has the correct terms (weight of the bullet in Newtons, distance traveled in Meters, time elapsed in seconds.) What's wrong with this analysis?
 
Jetmugg said:
Help me find any errors with this methodology (using metric units and expressing power in terms of Newtons*Meters/Seconds) :

210 grains = .129 Newtons

26 inch barrel = 0.661 Meters

Time to reach end of bbl = 0.0017 seconds (estimated)

Watts = 0.129*0.661/0.0017 = 50.16 Watts

Since roughly 745 Watts = 1HP,

50.16 Watts = 0.0673 Horsepower


Seriously, I don't see the error in this logic (not saying there isn't any, just that it's not obvious to me).

SteveM.
Same problem as in English units....Grains and Newtons are units of Force(against 9.8 Meters/sec^2)...not mass. Which is fine I guess if you are pushing the bullet through the barrel at 9.8 M/S^2 for 0.0017 seconds....But it won't make it that far with that force in that time.

3000 ft/s = 914.4 M/s You really should see that term in the calcs somewhere. (Preferably squared)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok

OK:
It's the excess unaccounted for energy which causes the problem with the horse, pulley, and weight example. The horse does not throw the weight up into the air with any acceleration, other than slightly overcoming gravity. I can see that now.

It still seems strange to express the power of a 300 Win Mag as 5000 HP, but only applied for 0.0017 seconds. It feels too much like a distortion of the original intent of the concept of HP. I'm not sure that James Watt would approve.

I have heard of folks attempting to build "gunpower" powered engines, but don't know of any operating engines in existence. There was an episode of Mythbusters where they tried to build such an engine. Does anyone know of such an engine?

SteveM.



.
 
Hp

This is one of those times when I am absolutly certain that I do not have the educational background to follow all of this.

A similiar discussion comes up when the issue of Top Fuel Dragsters is discussed. Talk about big numbers being thrown around. anywhere from 6000 to 8000 HP.

The difference is, you can mathematically figure how much HP it takes to propel a 2300 pound object 1/4mile in 4.45 seconds from a standing start. You can also get a good idea from the amount of energy that is expelled as the large amount of fuel is consumed. It does take a certain amount of BTU's to make a given amount of power.

This is probably a pretty accurate figure. Then, you look at a typical Top Fuel Engine at 7000 HP as compared to a big EMD, (or similiar), Locomotive Diesel. Heck,the starter motor on the EMD is about the same size as the Top Fuel Engine. Could that Top Fuel Engine power that Locomotive with 10,000 tons of train behind.

The answer is yes. If you geared it down to transfer the torque, it would, in theory, run the train.

For about 4.45 seconds..........jackie
 
More Math, feel free to correct.

As a note to those who were wondering, the time we had to wait for gravity to stop our 300 win mag 210 bullet with 3000fps V is 93.5 seconds.

Here's an example to quantify this all (and the reason I was lost)

Hopefully Steve this kinda shows a V8 300 Win Mag.

Ok, we have 8 revolving barrels, or 8 immaginary cylinders with 210 grain pistons and connecting rods!

Ok, 1 second divided by the time in the barrel. 1.4 milliseconds being used now cause it's a little closer to the 26" barrel estimate.

1/.0014=714.28 (cyl firings per second). This represents continous power output.

Divide by 8 cause we have 8 cyl (8 barrels) on our engine. = 89.28 times each barrel fires Each second. (call them revolutions) If this was a gattling gun, it would be firing 89 shots from each barrel each second, and would have 8 barrels doing that.

Times 60 = RPM's = 5357rpm's.

So, if we had 8 rotating 300 Win Mag Barrels firing in succession so that there is always a bullet being fired, the "machine" would have to run at 5357 RPM's to generate our hypothetical "Horsepower".

Don't forget, this is a great deal different than the dragster engine cause the way I figure this, the V8 300 Win Mag, is a 2 stroke at 5357rpms! It haint got no valves either!

I suppose it's safe to say I would not want to hold the trigger on that gun for one second. Least not in a sporter weight anyhow.

That's a cyclic rate of 42800 rounds per minute from a 300 Winnie. That's gonna kick.
 
Are there any engineers, science/math teachers, or others out there who love math?

Challenge: Can you take a specific cartridge in a specific rifle and determine the horsepower generated by the rifle?Bear in mind that a rifle is a machine that produces useful work. Work is measured in foot/pounds. That's a simple calculation and can be found in most reloading manuals.

Now . . . horsepower is a measure of work plotted vs. time. In other words, the power of this machine that is the rifle. A machine rated at 10 horsepower can perform more useful work in a given unit of time than a machine rated at 5 horsepower.

Now, take any rifle and any load you want, and see if you can determine the horsepower produced by said rifle.

I would try this, but I'm an English major, unfortunately, and incapable of the analysis.

I've often wondered about this . . . hope someone takes me up on it.

Montana Pete
The answer to his queation is just "Yes". :D
 
Back
Top