the physics of chopping

...

Again, cell phone typing, so I'm not gonna go into detail ere, but you are wrong. It's not that the penny has plenty of speed, it's this little issue of terminal velocity and the poor aerodynamic profile of the penny, which generates lots of fluttering turbulence which prevents the penny from going fast enough to act like a bullet.

This is correct. The penny actually isn't moving very fast at all (relative, of course, to the speed at which it would HAVE to be moving to be fatal)

P.S. Going along with the penny myth:

I will use the same example I used before. If I fired a penny at 600mph into someone's skull, do you think they would die? I think so.
 
...

Again, cell phone typing, so I'm not gonna go into detail ere, but you are wrong. It's not that the penny has plenty of speed, it's this little issue of terminal velocity and the poor aerodynamic profile of the penny, which generates lots of fluttering turbulence which prevents the penny from going fast enough to act like a bullet.

what of the part about bullet loosing velocity once it leaves the barrel, but a knife picking up acceleration until it hits the target or passes the critical part of the swing?

I know you cell typing :) ... darn failing AOL internets. so yes or no on that part is cool.
 
what of the part about bullet loosing velocity once it leaves the barrel, but a knife picking up acceleration until it hits the target or passes the critical part of the swing?

I know you cell typing :) ... darn failing AOL internets. so yes or no on that part is cool.

You are correct. A knife swing has a positive acceleration while a bullet has negative acceleration due to air resistance after leaving the barrel.

P.S. The knife will pretty much have positive acceleration until it hits the target no matter where the point of impact is (assuming generic chopping motion: start high, end low). Even if you're hammering a nail that is above your head, the hammer still has a positive acceleration (unless you're a wimp or something :D)
 
Last edited:
Good LAWD!!! you guys are giving me a headache!

I'm no physicist... just a guy who uses knives.

I can say with absolute certainty that heavy fat knives chop better than lighter knives, cereris paribus.

2 plus 2 equals 5 sometimes in the world of academia... but those of us in the 'real world' just use common sense and reality is truth enough.

Still, I wish OP would jump in and clarify this issue... ;)
 
The limit on the chopping ability of light vs heavy is the human operator's arm.
Only so fast it can swing a tool.
It is more important to pick the best tool for the job at hand, than to try to swing the tool faster.

Bullets are not a good comparison as wierd things happen at extreme velocity.
P.O. Ackley:
His classic test, which proved his point, was conducted by shooting bullets into ½-inch-thick steel-armor plate from the frontal area of a U.S. military half-track. At a distance of 30 feet, he shot a .270 Win with 100-grain bullets, a .30-06 with military-issue, solid-steel, armor-piercing bullets, and a .220 Swift with a 48-grain bullet.

The results were astounding. The .270 bullet left a shiny spot on the armor plate and did not penetrate at all. Two shots from the .30-06 armor-piercing bullets left shallow craters .070 and .098 inch respectively. The little .220 Swift bullets consistently burned 3/8-inch diameter holes completely through the ½-inch armor. The results spoke for themselves. Crossing the threshold of hypervelocity created a dynamic as a result of shock that cannot be achieved any other way.
http://www.barnesbullets.com/information/product-news/publication-mentions/battlin-bullets/
 
2 plus 2 equals 5 sometimes in the world of academia... but those of us in the 'real world' just use common sense and reality is truth enough.

just curious: when does 2 + 2 = 5 "in the world of academics"?

you must have been to school somewhere that I haven't...

I agree with you that academics sometimes gets pretty unreal... as does quite a few other places...

but physics IS the "real world"
 
Last edited:
guys you can't discuss the physics of chopping in a vacuum as in just looking at the formula. The blade geometry has to be taken into consideration. If you had a brick weighing in at the same weight as your chopper and dupllicated speed the effect formula wide would be the same but the impact still would be the different because of the effects the two dieffferent material would have on each other one a crushing and the other a shearing largely having to ddo with how the energy is dispersed when the surfaces collide. So on a large chopper no matter the the weight as compared to a light chopper the blade geometry would impact the swing in so many different ways I haven't even the urge to take the time to type it out.

Large choppers are not always the best choppers and light choppers can't do it all. Yes oh my God the obvious. Instead of the math perhaps a better discussion would be technique. Keeping in mind as well the choice of tool. A broad fat bevel like a convexed axe head will have the effect of popping the material out and its energy will be absorbed by the material it impacts on in a totlay different way the a light thin edge which will have more of a shearing effect because there is less surfec interaction between the blade and say the wood on the tree on initial impact.

Alot would depend on the material as well even down to the effect on hard would to soft wood.
 
Last edited:
guys you can't discuss the physics of chopping in a vacuum as in just looking at the formula. The blade geometry has to be taken into consideration. If you had a brick weighing in at the same weight as your chopper and dupllicated speed the efffect of the impact still would be the same because of the effects the two dieffferent material would have on each other one a crushing and the other a shearing. So ona a large chopper no matter the the weight as compared to a light chopper the blade geometry would impact the swing in so many different ways I haven't even the urge to take the time and type it out.

Alot would depend on the material as well even down to the effect on hard would to soft wood.


I tried to tell them that and this is what I got as a response.......... :rolleyes:


Actually it can. Let me fire a .5 oz stone at 400mph into your skull. I think your opinion will differ then.

(I don't mean to be nasty, just proving a point.)
 
but physics IS the "real world"

The real world is going out and chopping wood for real, you know, putting steel to wood removing chunks of wood. ;)

Physics is just math. ;)

People need to spend more time chopping wood than sitting at a desk with math formulas if they want to get the real answers.

Now if they want to use math to try and explain why something happened then that would be a much better use IMO, but those would be theories that would have to be mathematically proven in the math world.

Once the theories are proven they can all sit around talking about how smart they think they are or give each other high 5's or whatever it is they do....... :rolleyes:

Meanwhile we will be chopping wood here in the real world. :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
SO... wouldn't a LONG knife chop better, since the outer portion is moving faster???

Depends on a lot of things like weight, thickness, density of the wood being chopped etc.

But yeah a 10" blade 1/4" thick will out chop a 6" blade of the same thickness if all other things are equal.

Now take two 10" blades one being 5/16" thick and the other 3/16" thick chopping the same media and things will be different. The heavier blade will be better because of the added weight and mass all other things being equal.

That's the reason why a FFBM will out chop a BWM every day of the week. ;)

It's real simple and it doesn't take much thought to figure it out, no reason to get a headache thinking about it. :D
 
Last edited:
Now thats its morning I have a new look at things.

Assuming all things except weight and velocity are equal.

Scenario 1: Heavy Chopper, call its weight 10, moving at a velocity 10. Has a momentum of 100 and impacts a block of wood with F=500, from equations F=ma, which turns to F=.5mv^2(original velocity)-.5mv^2(final velocity which is 0).

Scenario 2: Light chopper, weight =5, moving at velocity 20. Has same momentum as scenario 1=100, but has a F=1000 using same equation above.

Both knives impact the same 100 weight block of wood which ideally absorbs the entire Force and reacts by moving. Since the block of wood can not freely move in the direction of the force it then reacts in a negative Force towards the knife. Lets say 80% of its energy was absorbed into the ground and the other 20% comes back. That means a F=100 impacts the large knife, which means it will want to 'rebound' with velocity =~4.5 . The F on the light knife is 200, which with its smaller weight means it tries to rebound with a velocity of =~6.3(no calculator here, so someone correct my math if its wrong.) This would seem to indicate why a smaller knife feels like it recoils more. If we stop here the light knife has exerted more force on the wood, which given all other things are equal, would mean it has cut deeper.

But, lets keep going. You are still applying a force on the knife. Your arm absorbs most of the recoil of the knife but you are still pressing down on the blade with as much pressure as you can, equal in both knives cases. Since you are applying the same force to each knife at this point but the lighter knife is reacting more negatively towards you with a greater force there is now a greater force being applied to the heavy knife, remember this is all happening in an instant. You send a larger force to the wood with the heavy knife this time. The wood reacts again, and the knives again, and again and again until all energy is used up in friction or absorbed by some other means. Each time the wood reacts with a force on the knives, the smaller knife will react more, so its energy back to the wood will diminish faster than the heavy knife. This sinusoidal curve will show which knife ultimately transfers the most energy into the wood.

If you have ever seen a computer analysis of a knife stabbing something it is actually the second force applied to the knife that generally penetrates what it is puncturing, not the first. This is why most ballistic vests are not good against knife attacks as they are designed to defeat a single large energy transfer. The force behind a knife is much different than a bullet and you can not use the same principles to compare energy transfer of the 2. There is a constant force applied to the knife, where a bullet only has an initial energy transferred to it by the expansion of gasses behind it. There are lots of reactions happening that we can not even feel and I would venture a guess that if someone did the same computer analysis on a block of wood being chopped we would see the same sinusoidal graph come out that you see in stabs. Moral of the story, get out and chop something.

Disclaimer: I am not a physics teacher nor even a current physics student. I deal more with static loads in my day to day and leave dynamic ones to the people who know better.

Its too early in the morning to have my head hurting, time to get some meat on the smoker!! Chop this with your physics book.
P1010304.JPG
 
A lot of this thread reminds me of people out to prove a theory ... usually at the
expense of those who in reality have to live with it ...

- .38 Specials are a better manstopper than 9mm Para because the bullets usually stay inside the body as opposed to going through it ....

- .308 is all you need for a Sniper Calibre in the modern battlefield ... 800 yards is plenty far enough for most people's skills ...

- the Military don't need square canopies for parachutes .... it is much better to use round ones with limited steering ability .... that way they will all land in tighter clusters ...

- combat boots don't need to be waterproof as none waterproof boots dry out quicker and easier if filled with water ...

Now we have .... chopping with lighter knives should enable faster speeds which in turn will enable greater performance ....

Sorry ... it is entertaining up to a point ... but nothing beats "using" to get to the truth of matters ....
 
Last edited:
Watch this. Chopper Comparison
I forget this forum members name but he is here somewhere.

On paper, from what I am hearing here, that machete(14.5oz) should have whipped the BK-9(16 oz) hands down with and extra 6 inches of length, but it did not. Mabye another user could have beat the Fiskars 14" and 18 oz with the machete.

Decide for yourselves but...

IMHO I see his technique as being undoubtedly more solid and consistent with the hand axes.

Potential is one thing, application is another, and when using hand tools, it is more important than the incremental differences between these tools.
 
I tried to tell them that and this is what I got as a response.......... :rolleyes:

You're missing the point. There is absolutely NO USE in analyzing this problem under real world circumstances because there are TOO MANY variables to account for (as mentioned numerous times). Blade shape, edge geometry, type of wood, density of wood, density of steel, humidity in the air, length of blade, width of blade, physical condition of chopper the list goes on and on and on.

The point is if i have a (insert your favorite fixed blade here) and I swing at a piece of wood at X velocity, and then repeat the same experiment at 2X velocity, it will "chop better". I write chop better in quotes because in truth it should read "it will transfer more energy to the wood".

If you STILL don't believe me, and you MUST have your "real world example", take your Busse whatever and go outside with two similar pieces of wood. On the first piece of wood, lightly lower your blade until it makes contact with the wood. Notice the penetration. I'll save you the effort: a few millimeters. On the second piece of wood, swing as hard (fast) as you can into it. Notice the penetration.

If you don't believe me, go outside and do it.
 
You're missing the point. There is absolutely NO USE in analyzing this problem under real world circumstances because there are TOO MANY variables to account for (as mentioned numerous times). Blade shape, edge geometry, type of wood, density of wood, density of steel, humidity in the air, physical condition of chopper the list goes on and on and on.

The point is if i have a (insert your favorite fixed blade here) and I swing at a piece of wood at X velocity, and then repeat the same experiment at 2X velocity, it will "chop better". I write chop better in quotes because in truth it should read "it will transfer more energy to the wood".

If it's not done in the real world it means nothing at all. ;)

Numbers are only theory at best. ;)
 

No it's very true, you can crunch all the numbers you want and after you factor in all the different varables taking who knows how long and prove the math, what likely a few months for all of that. After you are done it won't make any since and likely wouldn't be totally correct in real world application.

I can do the same thing in under 2 mins in the real word chopping wood. ;)

Take knife (A) that weighs (X) chop wood, then take knife (B) that weighs (Y) and chop wood, stop and look at the difference. Simple real world results, no math needed at all, just a little common since.

Read my post again, I added more to it.

I saw it after I posted.
 
No it's very true, you can crunch all the numbers you want and after you factor in all the different varables taking who knows how long and prove the math, what likely a few months for all of that. After you are done it won't make any since and likely wouldn't be totally correct in real world application.

I can do the same thing in under 2 mins in the real word chopping wood. ;)

Take knife (A) that weighs (X) chop wood, then take knife (B) that weighs (Y) and chop wood, stop and look at the difference. Simple real world results, no math needed at all, just a little common since.



I saw it after I posted.

Of course knife A and knife B would show different results because you're basically keeping velocity of the chop constant. You are correct in saying that a heavier knife while swung at the same speed as a lighter knife will transfer more energy to the wood. But you are wrong in saying that mass has more of an effect on the amount of energy transferred.

Analysis 1
Knife A = 1 kg
Knife B = 2 kg
Swing speed = 20 mph = 8.9408 m/s

Knife A:
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2
(1/2)(1)(8.9408^2) = 39.969 Joules

Knife B:
(1/2)(2)(8.9408^2) = 79.9379 Joules

Therefore, Knife B, which is twice as massive as Knife A, transfers TWO times more energy to the block of wood.

Analysis 2
Knife A = Knife B = 2 kg (Knife A and B both have same mass)
Swing speed 1: 8.9408 m/s
Swing speed 2: 17.8816 m/s (double swing speed 1)

Knife A, swing speed 1
(1/2)(2)(8.9408^2) = 79.938 Joules

Knife B, swing speed 2
(1/2)(2)(17.8816^2) = 319.752 Joules

Therefore, Knife B which has same mass as Knife A, which you also swung twice as fast as Knife A, transfers FOUR times more energy to the block of wood than Knife A.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top