"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
Harold Walker wrote:
[...]
....the little red squirrels are darlings to watch....almost as
fun to watch as the chipmunks....[...]

Ah, lucky man! I doubt if as many as half the people of GB have ever
_seen_ a red squirrel: the N American grey squirrel has taken over
(maybe since you were here last?), and they're the ones people are
getting worked up about.

There was a small population of chipmunks in Britain for a while,
escaped from somewhere; but they've died out. Groundhogs, thank
goodness, haven't got a foothold.

--
Mike.

Last time there was 2002...next time will be 2005....what is also fun to
watch is the coyote trying to catch a grey squirrel...so far we have not
seen any success story...altho when going thru the woods at the back of the
house we see coyote feces with grey hair mixed in...an obvious sign of
success....we dont have a stray cat problem as the coyotes like them too
much...H

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Chris Bacon writes:
|
| 1000Fps ??? At 12ft/lbs ??? What airgun is that then ?????
|
| A Gammo...made in Spain....does a super job....accurate as all can
be...
|
| But surely you're not in the U.K.? My .22 RF shoots a (subsonic)
| bullet at about that speed (depending on ammunition).

That's .22 short, I assume? .22 long is almost always supersonic.
The difference other than speed between .22 firearms and .22 air
rifles are that the bullet is c. 7 times heavier than the pellet,
so a .22 bullet carries c. 14 times the energy of a .177 pellet at
the same speed.



Don't want to appear pedantic, but isn't the formula for kinetic energy 1/2
mv2? So if v is the same for two projectiles, the energy will vary by half
the mass ratio, hence in your example it would be 3.5 times not 14 times?
Apologies if incorrect :-)

Nick Maclaren wrote:
Chris Bacon writes:
|
| 1000Fps ??? At 12ft/lbs ??? What airgun is that then ?????
|
| A Gammo...made in Spain....does a super job....accurate as all can be...
|
| But surely you're not in the U.K.? My .22 RF shoots a (subsonic)
| bullet at about that speed (depending on ammunition).

That's .22 short, I assume? .22 long is almost always supersonic.

No, you can get subsonics - e.g. Eley "Club Xtra", "Match EPS", etc.,
as well as high velocity rounds. I haven't used "shorts" for ages,
but ISTR they were available in high velocity.

The difference other than speed between .22 firearms and .22 air
rifles are that the bullet is c. 7 times heavier than the pellet,
so a .22 bullet carries c. 14 times the energy of a .177 pellet at
the same speed.

Yup.

The message
from "Harold Walker" contains these words:

Swim up a bit further and you are in God's country.....Yorkshire

Aye, 'appen, and Hell's there too...

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Don't want to appear pedantic, but isn't the formula for kinetic energy 1/2
| mv2? So if v is the same for two projectiles, the energy will vary by half
| the mass ratio, hence in your example it would be 3.5 times not 14 times?
| Apologies if incorrect :-)

Whereas I have no objection to appearing pedantic - hell, I am
a professional pedant :-)

It is m(v^2)/2. So, the ratio is (m1(v^2)/2)/(m2(v^2)/2). Cancelling
common factors, one gets m1/m2. You also may have missed the fact
that a .177 pellet has 1/14th the mass of a .22 bullet - both the
type and calibre are different.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
"Harold Walker" writes:
|
| Last time there was 2002...next time will be 2005....what is also fun to
| watch is the coyote trying to catch a grey squirrel...so far we have not
| seen any success story...altho when going thru the woods at the back of the
| house we see coyote feces with grey hair mixed in...an obvious sign of
| success....we dont have a stray cat problem as the coyotes like them too
| much...H

Well, if we hear of them being introduced into the Isle of Wight,
we shall know who to blame :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:

1000 fps is correct

I reread my post, decided to check my facts, and cancelled it :-)

Unfortunately, Usenet is not good at that. I still can't make all
the figures add up, as I am pretty certain that 350 fps was touted
as the maximum velocity for a 0.22 air rifle when I bought mine.
That is under a quarter of the energy of yours (and pretty damn
inaccurate).

350 fps is a bit less than 240 mph, which is 'nosedive' speed for a
bullet/pellet.

I'd estimate that a reasonable (·177) air rifle should propel a pellet
at around 900 fps, a good one, a lot faster. If I were to 'get at' my
·22 AirArms S310, I reckon, getting it to hold a pressure of in excess
of 250 bar and using a light pellet I could bump that up to over 2,000
fps - but then, it would require a f.a.c.

One thing to do is to check what those idiots mean by foot-pounds,
because there are at least three obvious meanings, and doubtless
others known only to legislators. Remember BHP?

A foot pound is very precise, and is that amount of energy required to
shift the mass of one pound the distance of one foot - but how you would
measure it in the 'back garden lab' I don't know.

I'd hazard a guess that you'd hit the bottom of a metal weight with the
pellet and see how far it rises against the force of gravity, and work
it out from there.

Ideally, the weight would be in a vacuum and not subject to friction on
its way up, and having come to rest, would remain there, but...

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from "Harold Walker" contains these words:

Me thinks we are talking apples versus oranges......1000fps for an air gun
is quite fast....yes, a tad below supersonic but still fast enough to give
very little warning to the recipient at air gun range. Pray tell me, what
model air gun gives a mv of greater than 4k fps....H

None, AFAIK, but I've no doubt it could be done. If you read my post
you'll see I'm comparing with *ROUNDS*, not pellets.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article ,
Jaques d'Alltrades writes:
|
| A foot pound is very precise, and is that amount of energy required to
| shift the mass of one pound the distance of one foot - but how you would
| measure it in the 'back garden lab' I don't know.

Er, you DID learn some elementary physics at school, didn't you?

Moving a mass of a pound the distance of a foot isn't a measure
of energy. At a naive guess, it would mean a foot-pound(force),
a.k.a. a foot-poundall, or a foot-pound(weight). But another,
equally important, question is how it is specified to be measured
(which is where my remark about BHP comes in).

I would have no difficulty measuring it at home, in any of several
different ways, and how to do so would make a nice open elementary
physics examination question. No, I don't approve of the modern
approach of close examination questions or, worse, box ticking.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

Moving a mass of a pound the distance of a foot isn't a measure
of energy. At a naive guess, it would mean a foot-pound(force),
a.k.a. a foot-poundall, or a foot-pound(weight). But another,
equally important, question is how it is specified to be measured
(which is where my remark about BHP comes in).

What's the difficulty with BHP? Almost self-explanatory.

In article ,
Chris Bacon writes:
|
| What's the difficulty with BHP? Almost self-explanatory.

A long time ago, the legislators defined it in a way that
made no engineering sense, and it created chaos in the UK car
industry for many decades. Yes, 'real' BHP is a clear unit,
but real foot-pounds is not a measure of energy. And it is
what the relevant law means by the term, not what engineers
do, that matters.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"BAC" writes:
|
| Don't want to appear pedantic, but isn't the formula for kinetic energy
1/2
| mv2? So if v is the same for two projectiles, the energy will vary by
half
| the mass ratio, hence in your example it would be 3.5 times not 14
times?
| Apologies if incorrect :-)

Whereas I have no objection to appearing pedantic - hell, I am
a professional pedant :-)

It is m(v^2)/2. So, the ratio is (m1(v^2)/2)/(m2(v^2)/2). Cancelling
common factors, one gets m1/m2. You also may have missed the fact
that a .177 pellet has 1/14th the mass of a .22 bullet - both the
type and calibre are different.


Yes, it appears I was doubly mistaken - firstly in misapplying the formula,
and secondly by interpreting your statement "The difference other than speed
between .22 firearms and .22 air
rifles are that the bullet is c. 7 times heavier than the pellet,
so a .22 bullet carries c. 14 times the energy of a .177 pellet at
the same speed." as deducing the comparative energy as a function of the
stated difference in mass between the .22 bullet and pellet.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
A long time ago, the legislators defined it in a way that
made no engineering sense, and it created chaos in the UK car
industry for many decades. Yes, 'real' BHP is a clear unit

Erm, are you saying that "the legislators" defined the "BHP"
as a different size to an "ordinary" HP?

In article ,
Chris Bacon writes:
| Nick Maclaren wrote:
| A long time ago, the legislators defined it in a way that
| made no engineering sense, and it created chaos in the UK car
| industry for many decades. Yes, 'real' BHP is a clear unit
|
| Erm, are you saying that "the legislators" defined the "BHP"
| as a different size to an "ordinary" HP?

No, just incommensurate with it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Chris Bacon wrote:
Nick Maclaren wrote:
A long time ago, the legislators defined it in a way that
made no engineering sense, and it created chaos in the UK car
industry for many decades. Yes, 'real' BHP is a clear unit

Erm, are you saying that "the legislators" defined the "BHP"
as a different size to an "ordinary" HP?

They defined an "RAC HP" which was specified by the shape and size of the
engine (cylinders), thus car makers in this country tended to develop
long stroke, low-revving engines. The "Austin 7" was 7 of these funny
HP, not 7BHP.

--
Chris Green