Can Explosions Deflect Bullets? 2 MILLION FPS - The Slow Mo Guys
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Firstly, headphone warning! Secondly, Can a ball of C4 alter the path of a 9mm bullet? Gav and Dan whip about an absolute selection of high speed cameras and try and find out.
Go to shadyrays.com and use code SLOWMO for 50% off 2 or more pairs of polarized sunglasses. Huge thanks to all the staff and students at the Colorado School of Mines for making this video possible.
Firefly Ember - freeflysystems...
Info on the Colorado School of Mines:
The Colorado School of Mines has been shaping the future of energy, mineral resources and space exploration for 150 years. Partnering with private industry and government, Mines is one of only a few institutions in the world with broad expertise in explosives education and research. Students here are gaining hands-on experience learning to find, develop, and process the world’s natural resources. Find out more here - www.mines.edu
Had to do quite a lot of noise cancellation on our mics for this one. The audio track had a bunch of hiss and clicks on it as though no mics were plugged in even though all our mic audio was also there 🤔. So sorry for the slightly weird audio on this one!
😱
Watching in ph
Thanks for explaining! It is noticeable indeed. I wonder what happened!
@DontReadMyProfilePicture.57Too late.
Such a creative concept to experiment, you are Amazing! i hope u try reducing the distance of bullet and explosive to almost touching that way as little as 20 gr can destroy the bullet, this was so far from the explosive high pressure zone. i mean 1 cm distance would do it probably.
I love how ridiculously complex the setup is, how precise everything has to be measured, and then the final target they’re using to measure success or failure is flapping around madly each time. 😂
Glad to see I'm not the only one with that thought
First thing I noticed.
.... but then they wouldn't have an excuse to redo the test all over again 😉
No amount of planning can overcome that natural Gav and Dan energy
I was thinking the same thing.... A bit of paint on some plywood would have fixed this.
Gavin starting off by saying its a very Mythbusters style of experiment at the exact moment i thought to myself "these two are the new mythbusters to me" is wild and i hope it continues forever
THe second they were like "and now we need more power" I was teleported back in time to watching Mythbusters
Colorado School of Mines?? I already know what's Mine and not Yours. 😳😵💫
Grant would be proud of these lads 😊
I would love a Cement Truck v.s. TNT part 2. at 1.000.000 fps
@@CrazyManuel94 Hell yes, that would be awesome
For the love of god! use a marker to mark your old bullet entries so you won't have to guess which one is the new one!! 😁 Nice explosions though! I bet the bullet is deflected a tiny bit, which may show better if target was like 1km away
Pasties are even better, but yes, somehow mark the previous shots.
imo, the biggest gripe is using PAPER target. Of course the blast is going to send the target flying and you won't get a consistent accuracy of hit markers. Next time, they should use a steel plate with a target painted on it.
i think the bullet would have deviated more if it was timed with the shockwave instead of the fireball
bullet being cylindrical dosent help i think. explosive bursts probably need flat planes for effect.
Just observing the position of the hole influences its position
I’m currently a student at Mines, and I’m glad you guys enjoy your time here!
Every time I drive past on my way to pick up beer loads at the coors plant, I always read it as "Colorado school of mimes," and now I will be imagining mimes with explosives 😂
ditto, glad this video randomly showed up in my recommends. I wonder when they filmed?
@@driverjayne At least the explosions would be quieter. :)
I applied last week, crossing my fingers
@@driverjaynewe don't talk about the Colorado school of mimes. But if you see a mime running. Run.
since you mentioned a storm coming in, an explosion going off in the middle of rain couple look super cool! Seeing all the rain droplets being displaced by the shockwave and stuff
This needs more votes!
YESSSS
Yea that would be pretty amazing plus it would give a good visualization of the shockwave
Plug for the algo
+
Came for the bullet, stayed for the shock waves. Stunning!
Might even say you where blown away? 😄
came for the video, stayed for the video
I think a revisit on this is in order. The shockwave happens so late vs the passing of the bullet. The flamefront and detonation is dead on the explosion's 6, but you can see the shockwave when the bullet has moved off to around 4 on the watchdial. Looks like you needed to set the detonation off even earlier.
Agreed...
Get the dynamite out again...and blow up earlier...
Cool as hell footage though.
To add to this.
The target needs to be further away. The shockwave was lifting the target paper and so putting the rounds "lower" on the target.
@@Rrynarthcan probably be solved in the same spot with a stiff board target.
And they need to use subsonic ammo, the shockwave from the 9mm will cut through the other
I think that the kinetic energy of the bullet is much greater than the gas ball and shock wave of the explosion. Several variables which might be worth investigating are a slower, larger bullet, and closer proximity to the explosion.
I’m so glad you guys have just kept going. Never went too corporate, never became some crazy production. Still just 2 fun guys who slightly got some more money and equipment over time. Love it
And occasionally borrowing an even better piece of equipment from other UA-camrs...
Gavin also does a lot of slow mo for hollywood films.
Maybe this sounds a little naive but I'm watching their sponsored segment most of the time just because they still have this chill vibe of regular guys doing stuff in their backyard and it feels fair
It's still just 2 fun guys, although they also occasionally have other people helping them (as you can see on this video for example). But yes, it's great they are doing their UA-cam stuff instead of a big TV show or something (not counting their TV-like slow-mo show they did for UA-cam with a big production crew)
It's their authenticity that keeps me tuning in after all these years. In an online landscape full of so many fake personas, it's nice that some still choose to just be themselves on camera.
When you see them standing at the Colorado School of Mines, you know it's going to be a top-tier video.
Facts
This is the essence of slo-mo. Way to go guys!
Also the essence of science - forming a hypothesis, testing that with as much control as possible, analyze the data and a theory is formed. Remember in science a theory is the highest level an idea/concept can reach as science never makes statements of fact, only for what the best current evidence demonstrates.
Thinking about it the bullet should actually have an easier time traveling through the super-heated plasma from the explosion because its density is probably less than air at that range. Kinda like how you could in theory fly a spacecraft through the outer parts of a big star like Betelgeuse.
I agree
what exactly is the theory of flying through the outer parts of a large star? as in the outer part of the visible atmosphere of a star that size isnt hot enough to melt a spacecraft? the near vacuum of space is less material & drag then the super hot gas and plasma emitting out so close to a star. isnt the sun's atmosphere technically also the solar wind after it leaves the main body of the star, meaning the star atmosphere technically doesnt end until it reaches interstellar space outside of it's solar system?
just realized this is codys lab lol love ur stuff man
I was wondering about that, even just the air pressure being lower inside the shockwave until things equalise. Such a fast explosion is going to have a very small time effect on the bullet.
Would be cool to see it done again but use a length of detcord along the flight path see if that changes things.
*smiles in Elite Dangerous* :)
I am guessing that the gyro stabilizing effects of the spinning bullet make it very hard to push it off course. Whatever the reason, it is very cool to see in such slow detail. Awesome job!
Entire travel time down the rifling it is affected by steel. Explosion wavefront is quite dense, but it is still gas - and it would have to undo a lot of what steel did :D
Yeah seeing what a gun that isn't rifled would probably give a bigger difference
Good points! Who has a musket, C4, and an insanely high speed camera?
Additionally if the explosion isn't timed in front of the projectile, then it's less likely to deviate its trajectory.
You can't push on someone riding a bike from behind and expect them to go backwards.
If the explosion occurs before the projectile passes the central line, then it should definitely have 'more' of an effect upon trajectory than a moderate push upon the tail.
The deviations of the hypothesis is quite small, so more micro measurements would need to be accounted for, and also that damn target needs to be fixed in place without issue from the blast.....
It causes so much variability that it almost nullifies the accuracy of the results. Hehehe accuracy of results. Lol
Still love the video!!!
Surface Area
Every time I saw the explosion wiggling the target I was like “how would they know if it was the bullet being moved or the target just jumping” lol great video lads
The thing that I would adjust is the distance from the C4 to the bullets trajectory path. Assuming inverse square law, halving the distance would put 4 times the force on the bullet. For an object of small cross section, and the impulse time of the explosion, you'd need to really ramp up what you're hitting that bullet with.
What
This is the same thought I had. Moving the C4 closer to the bullet may have a noticeable impact.
@@jo_bro666 Physics, my friend.
@@jo_bro666 What do more force; explosion on 300 square inches, or same explosion spread over 10,000 square inches? Then you have to factor in time of force applied. The close the bullet is to the explosive, it receives more force, and for a longer duration. Explosions lose energy very fast the further you move away from them.
Yes and trigger the c4 before the bullet gets there
As a test engineer for a weapons company, it would probably be even cooler to redo this test with a range of at least 100m and a 7.62 or 12.5 machine gun. Why not take advantage of this greater distance to add explosions to the trajectory. :)
I love your experiences! It's great, thank you!
Can connect with me if possible.
wouldn't it be more noticeable if they used tracer bullets?
What? Why would that be cooler? What would the distance change?
Bro just tryna flex
@@themashedavenger5461
In theory, the projectile will have less energy and go marginally slower such a notable range, leading toward a few small factors helping the explosion have a larger effect on the projectile.
Also might be why he's suggesting a larger caliber, though those calibers also have more propellant to be faster, somewhat mitigating the first few factors in terms of testing if it would have a greater effect..
Awesome video guys!
As a precision long range shooter I think your lack of bullet defection has more to do with the distance of the explosion to the target. It had very little distance/time to show you the deviation before it made impact with the target.
When shooting long range wind deflection of the bullet to the intended target is more important at the shooting location than it is closer to the target. Think, its has more time to deviate if there's wind at the gun than the close to target at say 1,000 yards.
Heck of a video, idea and effort! Very entertaining for sure!
I guess the explosion power is exponentially greater as you get nearer the detonation? If you can do it again, I'd like to see the bullet pass an inch by the explosive? Definitely speaks to the power of mass and velocity...
I'm curious if the energy imparted over a few milliseconds of exposure to the 3000m/s explosion is even significantly more than you'd see over 1000yds in a light breeze.
Regarding the exposure, if you can get access to identical cameras (I know, probably not gonna happen with the good ones) you can create a mirror setup to perfectly overlay their perspectives and have each record at different exposures, allowing you to capture HDR footage in slowmo, or fade between the shots to always get it best exposed.
Could get misaligned due to the shockwaves.
@@Kamzik123sounds like a skill issue
@@Kamzik123as long as the camera is further away from the explosion than the bullet is you will still get a stable shot
How far they've come....from popping bangers in the backyard to filming at the school of mines. Good on you guys!
And throwing Molotovs at Dan's Gran's house
The "I heard various explosions earlier" by his grandad has to be one of my all time favorite quotes lmao @@pioneerAv
@@mikimomo97 I still wish they put that quote on some merch 😂
I just graduated from Mines and I had no idea yall have been here.
Makes me even more proud of it.
Helluva Engineer
bit late but big gz on graduation!
The live reaction commentary to the footage will always be my favorite part of your videos! It's just so genuine and delightful to hear the excitement, analysis, thought process, etc. when working through getting a shot.
The bullet has a pretty tiny surface area for the shockwave to act on and is quite dense. I would've been more surprised if it had been significantly deflected. But who cares because awesome slowmo detonations are always epic.
Yea, the premise had me instantly thinking of that old Mythbusters episode where they tested if an explosion could 'push' a person in midair away from the point of detonation Hollywood style. The effect was so miniscule that they tried to 'replicate the results' by strapping a huge sail onto the dummy they were using and it still barely made a difference. That dummy was way, way less dense and carrying far less relative kinetic energy than a bullet in mid-flight. Based on those results I knew right from the start that the C4 never stood a chance against the bullet. Still a fun video!
That's exactly the relevant factor. You could possibly even estimate the amount of deflection.
Who would have thought that bullets are designed to go straight
also the gyroscopic inertia from the rifling
I have to say, I do love how i can never predict what the next video is going to be from you guys. Always feels like a pleasant surprise reading the video title.
Yes! It could be timing a bullet through a C4 explosion or Dan getting kicked in the balls while in a water balloon, one never knows. This is one of the best channels on UA-cam, consistently.
I really think you should try to get the explosion ahead of the bullet, almost like a dome shield to try to divert it, so the bullet travels into the shockwave that is already there and moving.
I agree and believe the explosion needs to be directed, much larger, or pinpoint in timing/accuracy to properly deflect. The energy of the explosion dissipating so quickly combined with designing a bullet to travel through air with minimal resistance makes me think the shockwave has no chance unless that explosion is massive.
From my limited military experience, you'll have to set off the explosive before the bullet gets to the explosive location to get any effect on the bullet's direction. In my mind the way you were doing it was like the reaction from a two stage rocket. There's another UA-cam video explaining explosive reactor armor on military vehicles. That'll get you a better starting point for round two.
I agree. I also belive they used the incorrect explosive. It should have been a pushing charge. In fact, now I think of it, perhaps a water impulse charge would have the best chance. Though I suppose it would leave a question as to the water or explosion pushing the round
Water Impulse charge is a cutting charge. I don't suspect it would have enough concussion force to deflect the bullet.
Yea exactly. It's like asking whether or not water can deflect a bullet, but instead of shooting the bullet into water where the bullet is experiencing the proper opposing resistance, you instead tried to pour water onto the bullet as it was traveling and barely got any water on it. The shockwave from the explosion needs to have started and is expanding toward the bullet for the bullet to experience the most resistance that could lead to a delflection. If all it's doing is going off right above the bullet, or right behind the bullet then it's really only going to chase the bullet and not apply that much force to it
It's dollar store physics 😂
@@shable1436 😂😂
Love this Mythbusters energy. The nerd in me is absolutely champing at the bit to see different variables tested. This is such a cool idea, and it'd be neat to see more experiments!
I'd love to see the bullet closer to the explosion. Like maybe a few inches away rather that a foot
Going into this, I was curious how you were going to nail the timing given the speeds involved. The idea to use the bullet as part of the trigger is that kind of clever simplicity that I love and always seem to not think of.
Yea that's pretty smart
Thank the Lord there's a lot of people in this earth much much smarter than myself. Sometimes I'm clever. But these two are smart.
It's a very interesting method and it makes a lot of sense seeing as similar systems have been used for actual military applications. Some HEAT warheads such as the British Swingfire ATGM uses a similar system to set off the main charge, although it works in reverse. As the front of the missile impacts a target, it deforms hitting another conductive layer underneath it which then completes a circuit. HEAT warheads like this are very time sensitive in the sense that if the missile doesn't go off at the exact right time, the copper jet won't have enough time to form properly which means it won't penetrate.
Interesting video. I would also say that the tiny surface of the bullet, ignoring all stabilizing effects like rifling, inertia, etc., also allows not much energy transfer from the shock-wave to the bullet.
That's why active armor on tanks can effect an incoming RPG to some degree as the hollow charge is a bigger target then a bullet.
Even your floppy target ruined more precise results quite a bit, it was interesting to watch. A repeat with a solid target mounted stable would maybe bring a measurable result. But I am sure the result would be neglectable until the shot was supposed to be a precision shot on a very tiny target.
Pressure on the bullet must be related to the surface area. So you could calculate how much it gets deflected according to the weight. Probably more noticeable by distance. Another interesting effect might also play a role. As the explosion creates a high density area you might even get an additional lensing effect as the bullet moves into and out of the high pressure area. For this the explosion would need to be earlier and the bullet closer. Great footage!
It get even more complicated when you have to account for the gyroscopic stability of the bullet.
@@LeCharles07 Gyroscopic stability should only effect spin or wobble thus keeping direction and reducing aerodynamic fluctuations. A side force would only move the bullet, not change its relative direction. A lensing effect might give it a bounce or dive depending on the angle but probably not effect is as much due to its spin.
Consistently the most wholesome guys on this forsaken platform
"Does he know"
Oh no honey....
Pretty sure Gav said some questionable things not that long ago
@@Arn._.oh where can I find that?!
Really love seeing a topic that is right in Dan's wheelhouse, a knowledgeable Dan is an excited Dan. Would love to see it with something heavier and slower (maybe a shotgun slug?)
Bow and arrow would be cool to see
Watching how the Colorado Mines team has responded to socal media since Mythbusters is utterly fascinating.
I'd be curious to see a larger, subsonic round. Wonder if there'd be a notable difference in the explosion's effect
So what we’ve learned is that adding C4 to my shooting fundamentals will increase my accuracy, Thanks for helping me with that! The IDPA guys won’t be quite as enthusiastic about this solution I’m afraid. 😂
Actually, I’m rather surprised that the trajectory of the bullet apparently wasn’t affected very much. 🤔
Wish I knew you were in CO, I would have loved to meet you guys!
I like seeing the bullet spin with the light of the explosion above. That and the mad flappy target instead of some plywood
Lighting hitting a future video item will make it more powerful? Confirmed, Slow Mo Guys are doing Slow Motion creeper explosions
You called it
4:00 - I was actually concerned this would happen when that was first shown. For future tests like this, I'd suggest starting with .22 short, then .22 LR, and maybe .22 magnum, and move up from there. Maybe also get the bullet traveling much closer to the point of detonation so it's hit with (presumably) an even stronger burst of force.
inverse square law...
This is an insane result, especially when you recall that the 9mm was the **second slowest** bullet from the Bullet Race video during the Super Slow Show.
Can you imagine how much force it would take to knock the Barrett 50 cal off course with this same setup?
There is more too it than just applying force, though I do in general agree the more high speed and heavy round will generally be harder to deflect there are other consideration that may throw in some surprises.
It might well be a more powerfully spun up bullet is effected more by the really high explosion derived windspeed over its own rotation from the Magnus effect than directly by the moving air and shock wave directly for instance. In which case you might find a faster and higher momentum bullet will actually be more affected than this 9mm entirely because it is also spinning faster. Would love to see them test it some more, though if I'm honest I don't think any sanely sized single explosion will actually meaningfully change a bullets trajectory - too much inertia and travelling through the explosion too fast.
It would've made more sense to have the explosion go off well before the bullet arrived. The shockwave is the only aspect that could fesibly deflect the bullet, so having it go off after the bullet had passed, or right as it is already passing, means the shockwave has to chase the bullet, or will push on the bullet from behind, so it doesn't give enough force in an opposing direction to alter the course. If the shockwave was already forming while a bullet was entering it from the front, thats when you may get the results you want since that is an opposing force that could result in it being deflected. It's kind of like asking whether or not water could diflect a bullet, but instead of shooting a bullet into water, you instead tried to pour water onto a bullet from above
And anyhow, the shockwave, moving at Mach 1, won't catch the bullet, moving at Mach 1.1 (1250 ft/sec)
15:15 Lighting making an object more powerful? Super charged Creeper perhaps?... 🤔 lol
1:30 I am super-impressed at the simplicity of the camera and explosive trigger mechanism. How cool!
But why it's simplicity?
Such a cool idea! If you ever revisit this my recommendation would be to get a rifle with sub 1 MOA (less than 1” spread at 100 yds) and move the target to 100 yds away, keeping the explosive closer to the rifle. Since 100yds is the basis for how accurate a rifle is, you’d get a much better idea if the bullet was being pushed since you have a baseline performance to compare the test to
would also vastly reduce the amount of insane variation with the target flapping all over the place 😂
You'd need subsonic ammo because rifles typically produce much higher muzzle velocities like 2-3 times faster which would necessarily reduce how much you could hope to deviate the bullet (because it would spend proportionally less time in the explosion's thrust zone).
I love that they were hinting at the creeper video at the end of this one, I never would’ve guessed that’s what they meant when saying lightning would “make it more powerful”
Gav really did great job with all the timing, I would compare that to the shot out of tank barrel back then. Amazing job, will watch again.
i'd say the most important factor is the bullets distance from the center of the explosion.
i'm sure you could also figure this out mathematically rather easily. you choose a rate of deflection that you would consider sufficient, take the bullets weight, shape and surface area, calculate the pressure per surface area that would do that and from there you can pretty much just tell how much explosive you need at what distance. and THEN you could get some awesome slomo footage of it =D
I was browsing the comments for someone that said this, really. Move the bullet closer to the explosion and there will be more changes on deflection.
@@hacky97 yeah, i did the same and didn't find anyone saying this here either, so i posted it.
seems obvious to me.
Just discovered these Slow Mo videos yesterday and have been binge-watching. They are fascinating! So cool.
Super cool video. Love to see your creative and unique moments captured in slow motion.
potential video idea: swords colliding and seeing the live impact area on the metal and see how the shock travels from the blade into the hilt and into the person holding it.
I don’t think I’ve ever watched a slow mo guys video without learning something new, or feeling just happier in general after.
sound design of the slowmo was awesome, i know you're apologizing for the noise cancellation but you've made it up plenty with your skills.
The mass of the bullet while travelling at such a velocity is much more than the force of the explosion being exerted upon it. Simply put, the explosion either has to 'push harder' (C4 pushes pretty hard, but there are better force-mulitplying options out there) or the bullet needs to get smaller. Still very cool and a fair experiment for a revisit! Thanks for the awesome entertainment always Guys!
It would be interesting to do the calculation of the force needed in such a short time to deflect a bullet with such a small cross-sectional area. Anyone good enough in physics to calculate that?
@@JanStrojil I don't think the problem is the size of the bullet. It's the short time of "contact" between the explosion and the ballet, and as OP said that air has a density 1/10,000 that of lead. So deflecting the bullet with a shock wave is like trying to deflect a thrown brick by brushing it with a feather. Wind can deflect bullets simply because of the (relatively) huge amount of time it acts upon the bullet.
Incidentally, cross sectional area goes as the square of size, while mass goes as the cube. So smaller bullets (with smaller cross sectional area) would actually be easier to deflect. So good call by them to use a slow, small bullet.
Mass ~= momentum ~= force. I don't know what you're talking about.
Would be interesting to see you guys experiment more with Tracer Bullets. That might have also helped you see the bullet on your dark shots. Perhaps you could do a video of Dragons Breath?
Also use a short piece of masking tape over your former bullet holes you will never mistake an old hole for new one in your target again. You guys do great things thank you
Excited to have finally seen Ember at 2:18! Really looking forward to seeing what you guys film with it in the future. Fantastic video 🤘🏼
Fantastic video! I didn't even notice any audio issues. Thanks for doing these, guys!
12:51 DJ Dan😂
you could aply to harverd with that level of ginius in that brain to think of that.
Pretty sure you could sell that frame. The bullet hanging below the birth of an explosion is just wonderful.
If you ever revisit this, try getting a grouping for the bullet rather than a single test shot. Make sure you circle the group with a marker too. That way you can easily tell when a bullet is out of the average grouping
And the target was way too close. No way to tell if the explosion had any affect on the bullet or not.
@@billnunya9324 I mean, obviously the bullet is gonna be off a little bit, but its not like its gonna hit 45 degrees below point of aim because a bomb went off next to it
@@billnunya9324 You have to take windage into account though. A more solid target is probably needed to avoid it going all over the place, but getting too far away would allow more external influence, especially on a little 9mm.
I’m going to the school of mines right now, getting an explosives engineering minor. Seeing these experiments makes me super excited for what I might get to do in the future! Hopefully I will have the opportunity to meet you both someday!
Always good to see a new slo mo video! Happy Sunday everybody!
To compare to firing at a distant target with wind: A 5.56 mm bullet travels something like 1000 m/s, judging from the video there's roughly a metre where it's exposed to the shockwave, so 1 milliseconds. If you're shooting something a kilometre away, it's gonna take at least a second (more because you'll need to arc it a bit and it will lose speed as it goes), so you would need a thousand times more force from the explosion than wind to get the same deflection of the bullet's heading. From a paper I found, the overpressure from 100g of C4 1.5 m away is about 15 PSI or 100 kN/m^2. A gale force wind (20 m/s) causes a force of about 250 N/m^2, so the C4 overpressure isn't too far off being 1000 times stronger, and will deflect the heading of the bullet by a comparable amount to the total effect of the wind. However, in this test, the bullet does not travel far at all after the explosion. I think this is what really makes the difference. If you could set up the target to be distant from the explosion (and had a good precision rifle clamped to a steady bench) you'd probably see a distinct measurable effect, comparable to the deviation due to a strong wind.
I think a .45 or 10mm would be a more interesting round to use for this. Slower round with slightly more surface area. I suspect the rotation generated by the rifling on the relatively quick and small round might've been a more effective shield against Shockwaves than the larger/slower rounds might have.
Just to answer the basic question: Yes, it can. This is the concept behind Explosive Reactive Armor (roughly). It’s slightly different because ERA is meant to deflect incoming copper penetrators from High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) shells which have a secondary charge which fire a bunch of copper spalling at extreme temperatures from the shell. Essentially, it’s a shell with a shotgun inside, except the shotgun is armor penetrating, super heated copper.
I think to achieve this effect, you’d need a directed explosive in a roughly 45~135 degree arc facing the incoming bullet dead on so that the center of the shockwave directly opposes the force of the bullet. As you tested it, I think you are just seeing why rifling is so, so, so important for accuracy. That gyroscopic motion prevents significant lateral movement. If you have it directly oppose the bullet, the gyroscopic spin of the bullet shouldn’t be a factor I don’t think. Either way though, it’s always fun to see explosions and bullets!
If you wanted an idea of something new to do though, if you can get ERA and some type of HEAT shell/rocket, it would be absolutely fascinating to see how the ERA works and what it does to the copper.
At this moment, this is my favorite Slow-Mo Guys video. I 100% thought the bullet wouldn’t even hit the target. I would have bet that the C4 would have a significant impact on the bullets. Nice video!
Explosives are very high energy at the point of explosion but that quickly diminishes with distance (inverse square law) - unless it's something like shaped charge. Bullets, on the other hand, are small, heavy and moving fast so they have high momentum, way higher than the shockwave at distance. Maybe if they exploded C4 right next to the flying bullet it might have an effect.
@@LiborTinka I agree with you and Gav. It would be cool if they had way more time to play around with the variables. I’m sure with enough iterations, they could achieve more deflection!
@@jeromeschwartz3699Yes. There is already a video of bullets colliding mid-air air (from SmarterEveryDay) so hitting a bullet with directed charge or close-up explosion would be cool, too :)
@@jeromeschwartz3699Yes. There is already a video of bullets colliding mid-air air (from SmarterEveryDay) so hitting a bullet with directed charge or close-up explosion would be cool, too :)
@@LiborTinka I saw that Smarter Every Day video! I was pretty impressed with the way he solved the, how do you safely load the second gun after you’ve loaded the first gun, dilemma!
Given the pressure wave is dispersing with spherical propagation, shortening the distance from the charge to the bullet path would have had a massive difference on the forces on it. I'd have gone that way first.
I think you results would been more consistent if your target was solid. You can see in some of the slowmo that the flimsy target moved before the bullet hit which would alter it's initial impact point. And the way the target moves would vary with each shot as the shockwaves move faster than the bullet. Definitely worth revisiting I think.
If you do revisit this again:
- Please make a target that cannot be moved by the shockwave, or fall down and be placed back in a slightly different position. Maybe a stack of cinder blocks with a target painted or pasted onto it
- Please mark your bullet holes so you can look back at each attempt and know which is which
- Please try to time it so that the shockwave itself hits the bullet when the bullet passes directly below (in the closest shot in this video the detonation began when the bullet was directly below, but by the time the shockwave caught up the bullet was some distance away)
- If trying new variables, either a larger or closer explosion could be interesting to see. And I agree that different bullet speeds would also be interesting
Thanks for such an interesting and fun video! The footage was again amazing, as always. Love your content
You could have moved the bullet closer to the explosion by either lowering the explosives or hiding the pistol and wire-paper and still aiming at the sandbags. This will put the bullet in a much more energetic part of the explosion, although I see this might be dangerous for safety reasons
This experiment deserved an solid target, not just a piece of paper
The footage is flipping beautiful. Super cool & thanks for sharing them.
My personal random thoughts:
Hitting on the front quarter of the bullet with the actual shockwave would do the most to deviate the bullet. It would cause a dramatic adjustment of the density of the travel medium at weird angles, so both the air resistance and the spin would be working to destabilize the bullet. I also expect that the blast of plasma did considerably less than the actual shockwave, which cannot by definition travel faster than air. So plasma at 3kfps would be making a small shockwave as it traveled, but the main wave was clearly visible travelling at ~1050FPS. Many of those shots where the plasma engulfed the bullet would not have had any interaction between the 9mm travelling supersonically and the main shockwave. I also think a spitzer type bullet, as compared to the round nose you were using, would have a greater sensitivity to random pressure waves, but I may be mistaken. If you get the chance, I would love to see an explosive lens or shaped charge used to put a dramatic overpressure or jet of metal vapor onto the side of a bullet in flight - but I imagine that might be a little much even for you all.
Edit: Maybe a collaboration with Brandon Herrera might get you the shaped charges...
Thanks! Would love to see more video's like this. Your take on MythBusters Style is spot on.
"I've witnessed, events so tiny and so fast, that can hardly be said that occured at all"
- Dr. Manhattan
Always asking the awesome questions!
The dudes are always great but what a creative idea. Amazing video👏
Years later and your content has been just as good and better every time.
It's called the scientific method and Gavin is great at visually representing it
I think you would've had better chances if you got the bullet to be a lot closer to the explosive. If it was 4x closer, it would've experienced 16x more force. Also you guys should get an Imalent SR32 flashlight. I'm really sure it would help with a lot of these shots when the sun starts going down.
guys... This is the basic concept of ERA (Explosive Reactive Armour) which sees pretty widespread use on tanks. The concept is that it detects incoming projectile, detonates before they impact or after they have set off whatever shaped charge they use, and saps energy from or deflects the projectile or shaped charges stream.
Amazing! Haven’t watched it but I can already say that was amazing!!!!
This has already been done; during World War One they used "creeping barrages" of artillery to obscure enemy vision as well as blow away incoming enemy fire ahead of advancing troops.
8:10 that was really cool to see something outrun a bullet
Can't wait to see the follow-up video at the Colorado School of Mimes!
Next time do it with a carbine and put the target at least 50 yds past the explosion site. Give the bullet room to move! This was a brilliant idea! Keep answering questions no one has asked.
I like how you're testing the impact of an explosion, coming to the conclusion it's not likely to affect it.. but throughout happily say the wind plays a part....
Maybe another experiment could be a machinegun in a wind tunnel!
The shimadzu at 11:13 created what looks like a chemical compound structure of spherical atoms into a molecule that's a 3d diamond shaped (regular octohedron) as it forms, such an amazing capture, very nice footage.
Yall could make a wonderful art gallery. High res clips of the explosions. Start with just bullets in gel then get more and more intense.
My hypothesis is that the bullet has so much energy behind it that a blast from a measly 100g of explosive does not have enough push to deviate it from its path. It's basically 100g worth of energy being pushed out at high velocity in *all directions* but the bullet doesn't cover even 1% of that.
So, rough broken abacus estimation is that the bullet is just being dusted with a weak 0.01g of 100g worth of blast energy.
Wow, that was some very cool footage. To add my 2 cents, I would suggest moving the target farther away from the explosion and also confirm the mean point of impact with multiple shots before testing. When firing a rifle in windy conditions, the bullet moves very little when you are close to the target. At longer range, even a mild breeze can push it off target. I hope this analogy is useful.
i LOVE the sound changes when it went ultra-slow black and white. Good job editor.
Dan ".... test and adjust ... Good UK Military Range Speak. Takes me back. Thanks
As ex military I have a couple of thoughts. Firstly, the target moves from the shock wave so the control then means nothing. Secondly even 2 or 3 mm of deflection over such a short distance would mean missing the target completely over any distance - a 30 kph side wind can cause a high velocity round to veer off target by about 1m over 300m.
you always seem to answer the questions that i never knew i was asking
2:41 Wow, a whole 250 frames? That's incredible!
So I guess after that you need a new shimadzu?
16:12 Exactly. There's a huge difference between "slightly affected" and "not affected". The former means with enough power you might meaningfully deflect a bullet, and the latter.. Might warp our understanding of how these forces interact. I might be saying something completely stupid here, but it could have the same impact of learning that the shockwave was a ripple in spacetime rather than simply air density. Physicists would probably laugh at me for saying this, but this could be the kind of level of discovery we get if we learn more about it.
Man! please make a 4k wallpapper of that picture of the bullet under the explosion, pleease! Great stuff as always
The aerodynamic design of the bullet that prevents it from slowing down from air resistance is also what reduces the effect of a shockwave. In that sense it should be resistant to the explosion as at is resistant to wind. I think it is a good idea to test it with a old fashioned bullet like the ones used on a flintlock. A further distance from the target could also be useful to exaggerate the diversion of the bullet giving a clearer result
I recently saw one of your shorts next to a short of the blue flash of a nuclear reactor start up, I'd love to see a slow mo video of a reactor going critical.
I’ve been watching you guys since the water balloon burst. It’s so fun to keep up with you! This was a great experiment!
I was actually going to say in the previous video that you should come to my home state of Colorado! We have so much to offer!
the speed of the C4 also a good way to see why all bombs in the movies are usually firebombs, its not just on set safety due to their minimal pressure wave but also real explosives are a quick sharp punch which is bad for cinematic value.
Keep at it guys I know you can get it done! Some ideas... More powerful explosion, Maybe try a shaped charge? Bigger bullets, slower bullets, like a round from a .38 snub nose? Maybe something with no rifling like a musket ball, or for sure a powerful shaped charge and a paint ball! great video! Thanks, 😀