last day (15 days later) » 

01:07
0
Q: Could a mass-proportional physical speed limit on projectiles "nerf" guns but not ruin archery?

Jason ClydeLike many other writers, I'm hoping to create some sort of justification for destroying the monopoly firearms have on the modern combat scene so that I can justify mixing things up with melee weapons, archery, slower-than-bullet magic, etc. I'm hoping to do this by using my story's magic system t...

Hi Jason. What you're describing (and would make your question clearer) is momentum. You're saying that the velocity component of the momentum is 'capped', but the mass component is not. Explaining it that way might actually draw more scientific answers.
@TimBII Thanks for the advice. I'm a bit confused though: what part should I change, and what would you recommend I rephrase it as?
The paragraph that starts in bold and has For Example is describing what you're asking, but this could be greatly simplified by saying something like 'the velocity of a 700 grain bullet is capped at 100m/s in terms of momentum, but that's multiplied by the mass (regardless of value) to determine momentum of impact. So, a sledge hammer hitting you at a slower speed but at or above the velocity cap (but weighing a thousand times as much) has a momentum at point of impact of 1000 times, meaning that the speed is taken to be the same'. Something like that.
@TimBII Just to be clear, the effective velocity limit is proportional to the mass of the object, not fixed. Heavier objects are allowed to apply more of their velocity to the momentum equation before the excess is ignored.
Well yes, that's one way to put it, but your math looks differently the way you've expressed it. What your math shows is that mass can be anything, but there is an upper limit to velocity. By using a constant (100), you're effectively putting a limit on speed, meaning that momentum is increased through mass, not velocity past the speed limit of 100
01:07
@TimBII No, what I'm saying is that when a .1 pound bullet hits the human body at 2,000 fps, the body reacts as if it were hit at 10 fps, and thus the momentum is 10 feet per second times .1 pound. But when a 3 pound sword hits the human body at 70 fps, the human body reacts to the full 70 fps because 3 pounds allows for 300 fps, and thus the momentum is 70 fps times 3 pounds. The limit on speed gets higher the heavier the object is.
Alright.
Alright; M=mass x Velocity, and you're saying that the upper bound of momentum is Mass x 100. That means, that the maximum momentum is governed by the mass only. Any velocity past 100 (of whatever unit, I prefer SI) is discounted. Your example actually agrees with this
No, the upper bound for VELOCITY is mass times 100.
That's what I'm saying
Well, that's not velocity
It's a mass-proportional effective speed limit.
That's momentum.
01:11
Yes, but like I said, magic changed the equation so that mass counts both for how fast an object is allowed to go AND for how much that speed is multiplied by.
Is that not clear in my explanation?
No. It's not.
I thought paragraph 2 explained it pretty well, and then paragraph 3 elaborated on it. What should I change to make it clearer?
Not to me anyway. What you're describing is a massive change to some of the constants in general relativity, and any velocity times a mass is a momentum because you're multiplying things of different units
I think I understand what you're trying to say, but you're effectively changing the speed of light.
Another way of putting this is that you'd have to convert mass to a unit compatible with speed and direction before you can create a mass-dependent velocity, unless you change general relativity
Well as I said, this doesn't change how fast the objects actually move. It's how fast they can move before any additional velocity is ignored upon collision with the human body. Until they hit a human, everything is exactly as it was before.
So you're saying that a bullet twice the weight can travel twice as fast as the first bullet and have that velocity factored into the upper momentum limit?
So the second bullet (twice as heavy) is effectively 4 times the momentum?
01:15
Yes
As long as it's moving at or above the new speed limit, a doubling of mass quadruples momentum
Why not just say that momentum is now equal to mass^2 times velocity?
Much simpler
Something tells me that simplifying it to that would have nasty unintended side-effects on colliding with large objects, making them even worse than they were in real life.
This way magic only changes the impact if it would lessen it.
Right. So you're saying that this only provides an upper bound, so to speak?
Hmm. More thought required on my part for this
Why not say that the upper limit of momentum is mass^2 x 100?
01:20
Hmmm
Is that the same thing?
That still meets the spirit of your question, makes it a bit clearer in terms of the difference between momentum and upper bound of momentum
Well, yes I think so. I was struggling because you're talking velocity when in fact the problem (to me at least) is a momentum one.
What you're really trying to do (if I understand correctly) is limit the momentum of an impact by proportionally limiting the upper bound based on the mass and a theoretical speed limit
Yeah. I want to emphasize heavy projectiles rather than fast ones, to make projectiles more cumbersome
Without making anything hit harder than it already does
Ah. Well if you're looking to nerf impacts based on speed, this still works I think. I'd have to do some more math, but it could work
Basically, dealing with the upper bound equation of M^2 x 100 means that you're not automatically applying that much momentum, you're still using it as a cap
Sorry, I didn't realize this complicated the math so much.
No it's all good.
I'm just trying to help
And it's not the math you complicated - it's the value types
The unit types actually
If you multiply a velocity with a mass, you always get a momentum
01:25
Maybe I should clarify what the new formula for momentum is?
Well, it might be a good idea
Mass times velocity or mass times mass in pounds times 100 feet per second, whichever is slower?
Pretty much
Just call that a momentum equation rather than a velocity equation
Or, you can still put in the M^2 x 100 for momentum if you like, so that heavier things can still go faster and have it count
Do I have to specify units of measure in the equation, or can I say "If v > 100mv, momentum = 100v(M^2)"? Doesn't multiplying mass by velocity in that simplified way put the two sides of the equation in unequal units of measure and invalidate it?
Well no, because momentum IS mass times velocity. Your previous equation was invalidated by the fact that you were adding units of mass to velocity, which is only speed and direction. It's actually your first equation that's invalidated because of unit crossover.
01:32
Yeah that's what I was saying
Hmm.
I'm having difficulty working out how to simplify the equation mathematically when not explaining it in words
I'm thinking your new momentum equation looks like Momentum = min(mass x v, mass^2 x100)
I think you need two equations. The first, momentum, stays the same as it is now, but the new equation is simply an upper bound test
So, you're saying that if the momentum calculation gives a value that exceeds mass^2 x 100, then it's capped at that level
01:36
Also, 100 f/s/lb isn't fixed, as I don't know yet what value I'd need to sufficiently cripple guns. I just need to know if a value can even exist, and if it's possible to make a minimum missile size large enough to hinder guns that a bow would even be capable of shooting.
Good point
The thing is, it's a place to start.
Take a look at what mass^2 x 100 will do for your various projectiles as an upper bound, and then adjust the 100 constant to taste
Well, looks like someone upvoted your first comment, meaning you weren't the only one confused. I'll try to change it now.
Right-O.
I'll keep an eye on it, I plan to upvote the question because it's a good one, just needs a bit of clarity. Hope I was helpful
01:38
Thanks
You're very welcome
Does this help?
"Since an object's mass now determines its effective velocity, this means that, until an object becomes heavy enough that its effective speed limit exceeds its actual speed, a doubling of the mass of a bullet results in a quadrupling of momentum, which suddenly makes small projectiles much, much, much less viable."
I like it. That makes sense to me. But, I'd recommend putting the equation in to explain it as well as some people like me will benefit from taht
that
But it's good
What's the symbol for momentum?
I think it's commonly p
01:47
alright
so p=Mv, p(max)= M^2 x 100
(with the units in there)
Alright
The p<sub>(max)</sub> will make sense to the math heads; it means maximum possible P
(I might also recommend you convert to SI units as this being a science question will attract that comment)
So this?
"This changes the formula for momentum to p=mv, p(max)= X(m^2), where X is the feet per second per pound that the mass-proportional speed limit is set to."
02:02
Sounds good to me.
That way, you're not actually changing how momentum works; you're just putting a proportional upper bound on it based on mass.
Which, unless I've missed my guess, is exactly what you were trying to do...
Yes
Updated.
looks great, I just made a very minor edit to make it look more mathmatical...
And I upvoted
Thanks, I appreciate that, not familiar with all the code on this site yet

last day (15 days later) »