Investigating BioVALs BB Claims

[Flatlander]

Originally Posted by Easy

That formula is the closest thing we have in airsoft to shedding some light on this issue. Again it doesn’t matter if there is penetration or not. It doesn’t matter if the bb rebounds back.

What interests us is the correlation on either side of that formula.

AND it is not difficult to use that formula to derive one that is more in tune to our application. Then it would need to be proved/disproved.

Do you have a physical sciences background? It appears you have no idea what you are talking about but just regurgitating equations, pictures and descriptions from the Levante report. Just because it's a formula derived by an expert in a specific field doesn't mean you can simply apply it to any situation you think it might be also related to (RE: Ed=Cv*V). There's a lot more going on than most can comprehend. Simple grade 12 physics is no where near sufficient to begin to grasp what's going on.

MikeG, thanks for looking up the source of that formula (I didn't check it myself; you seem to have done the leg work, nice work). I believe you're spot on - this formula doesn't apply to airsoft at all. This is my initial opinion but it's coming with a Mechanical Engineering Degree background.

Then again, I have a feeling the difference between "regular" BB's and the BBBmax ones have very little difference in the amount of soft tissue damage they can cause. I would guess one could not tell the difference if hit by either. Until a Biomedical Engineer, Doctor, etc can offer their insight or someone can provide a reference to small object impacts and tissue damage to humans, I would take everything posted so far with a grain of salt.

My main concern is teeth and possibly knuckles, however. Also I'd be curious to see how much damage they can do against a metal bodied AEG - I'd be pretty upset if my gun wound up with a bunch of dents in it.

I've skimmed over the Levante Lab report and am skeptical of the results. Frankly, I'm too lazy to look into it seriously because soft tissue damage is a moot concern, IMO.

This thread is so all over the place I don't even know where it's supposed to be going...

[Flatlander]

I figured I'd better explain some of this further. This is the exact quote from the ballistics study MikeG found (see last post on previous page for source):

The theory of Martel [Kneubuehl 1999] says
[6 ] Ed = Cv*V
, where Cv is a constant depending on the properties of the target material and V the volume
of the ensuing hole. Therefore the size of the inflicted area is directly proportional to the
dissipated energy Ed.

Here is why this equation DOESN'T apply to airsoft:


- V is VOLUME, not area - Easy, coincidence you left that little tidbit of info out? They do say "Therefore the size of the inflicted area is directly proportional to the dissipated energy Ed" - however it appears that the wound is probably assumed to take a cylindrical shape so in which case the volume = cross sectional area x length/depth. Now the formula is clear V = volume.

- Ed is the dissipated energy: essentially ALL of the energy that the bullet has (at impact) is transfered (ie.dissipated) into the tissue...the bullet penetrates the tissue and stops so where else can the energy go? If a BB does NOT penetrate and bounces off, not all of the energy of the BB has dissipated into the tissue (or else it wouldn't bounce off).

[Amoki]

MikeG is correct, Easy. And here's the little bit of extra stuff that you forgot to quote in its entirety:

https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1

During penetration the bullet may lose its stability and start tumbling. It may also deform or be designed to expand controllably. Peters developed a mathematical model [Peters 1990] to predict the tumbling of a non-deforming bullet. A deforming bullet, however, will change its form and thus its centre of gravity during penetration making the model non-applicable as such. The forces acting upon the bullet may also tear it apart into fragments of various sizes.

The penetration behaviour depends on the bullet’s construction and on the retardation force it encounters. All these events make the bullet to present an increased cross-sectional area towards the penetration axis and thus transfer more of its kinetic energy into the tissue. Theb portion of the total kinetic energy that is transferred into tissue depends not on impact velocity or mass of the bullet per se, but on how the bullet behaves during penetration, whether it tumbles, deforms or fragments and what the tissue induced retardation force is. These phenomena make the bullet present a larger cross-sectional area in the direction of penetration thus increasing the drag and dissipation of kinetic energy [Sellier and Kneubuehl 1994, Tikka 1996].

The theory of Martel [Kneubuehl 1999] says
[6 ] Ed = Cv*V

, where Cv is a constant depending on the properties of the target material and V the volume of the ensuing hole. Therefore the size of the inflicted area is directly proportional to the dissipated energy Ed. Based on an analysis of a number of experiments with live pigs a significant correlation between the amount of devitalised tissue and dissipated kinetic energy(Ed) has been proved [Berlin et al. 1976 and 1979, Janzon and Seeman 1985, Janzon 1988, Tikka 1989, Janzon 2004]. Ed has also been called “down-track” energy [Coupland 2000].

Most people are more concerned with what happens upon impact.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Easy

What is the BB Bastards motivation in this discussion?

Last time Easy.

My motivation is I am interested in selling the product through my Canada wide network of associates. But not if it presents a danger to people's goggles or is made of a material such as glass. Simple as that. All my other reasoning is openly stated throughout and you and others have asked or implied that question multiple times and I've addressed it multiple times.

I've answered this question for the LAST TIME. If you make any more accusations and don't stay on topic, I will start having your posts removed from this thread. This is your LAST warning.

Originally Posted by MikeG

Also, Easy, what is your motivation in this discussion? Are you just a fan of Bioval? Are you an employee?

You're clearly a fan of the BioVAL product, which is fine so long as you bring useful information to the discussion, I really don't care if you're a BioVAL employee, worked at this mysterous lab, or whatever. I find it interesting you signed up here just for this discussion. If you want to start slinging it around and making accusations of seconded interested you're probably in the worst position on that count at the moment. So as I said, tread lightly, I am getting a little sick of the character assassination angle.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by MikeG

Sigh. I would appreciate it if you read everything I wrote as I have been with your posts.

Ed = Cv * V
Ed is 'Deposited Energy'. V is the volume of the PERMANENT hole caused by the projectile. If there is no permanent hole, this equation does. not. apply.

My source is this paper: https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1 (Wound ballistic simulation:
Assessment of the legitimacy of law enforcement firearms
ammunition by means of wound ballistic simulation
Jorma Jussila - 2005)

Anyway, I hope that the others monitoring this discussion will understand what I'm trying to get at, since you are being absolutely unreasonable. Good night.

Mike i hope i did not cause any offence. None was intended.

I know exactly what you mean and i agree that the paper relates to wounds for real firearms. And that the values that one should use relate to penetration (volume of the wound). That paper is the only study i could find that actually makes reference to other studies on the matter.

All i am saying (i admit that i have not come across very clearly) is that the formula correlates wounds with energy dissipation (which seems like a no brainer).

If we combine that knowledge with the laws of physics (that energy transfer from one object to another depends on how much time the objects actually are able to remain in contact) then it makes a lot of sense to conclude that a plastic bb that is able to deform (vs a hard bb that is less able to) will remain on target for a longer period of time vs a hard bb (at equal velocities) and will be able to transfer more energy to the target.

Penetration I guess would be the ideal situation and low velocity non penetration the most difficult to guage.

FLATLANDER - I agree with you too. I personally do not have any specific qualifications in the field of terminal balistics. And yes this thread is all over the place.

The article also points to another interesting formula that can be used by us?:

"A bullet [bb?] impacting the target has an impact mass of mi (g) and velocity vi (m/s). Its kinetic energy Ei (J) is defined as:

[4] Ei = 0.5 * mi * vi2 / 1000

Impact energy Ei is partially dissipated into [onto?] the target and performs work upon it. From Eq. 4 we can see that both the bullet [bb?] mass but more significantly its velocity determines the amount of kinetic energy. If the energy is not dissipated into the target, it is used somewhere else [!]. The wound ballistic energy equation can be expressed as:

[5] Er = Ei – Edef – Ed

where Er is the residual kinetic energy, Ei the impact energy, Edef the energy used by bullet [bb?] deformation and Ed the energy dissipated into [onto?] the target tissue. Since Ei has to be significant, Edef and Ed must be maximised in order to minimise Er. The residual energy is a significant factor describing the danger to bystanders [players ?] when the bullet completely penetrates [bb ricochets?] and exits [bb bounces off, rebounds off a wall ?] the primary target continuing its flight. The factor of Edef has often been overlooked in the literature [Tikka 1989, Pirlot et al. 2001]. Pirlot also uses the term deformation energy in conjunction with deformation of tissue simulant. Kinetic energy dissipation (Ed) can be increased by bullet instability, deformation and fragmentation. When a rigid tail-heavy bullet hits the target it tends to start tumbling because the rate of spin is insufficient to maintain stability in dense medium like tissue. This increases the cross-sectional area in the direction of penetration [impact?] which increases the dissipation of kinetic energy. The process is, however, somewhat out of control. The precise depth at which
tumbling occurs is difficult to predict as it depends on the yaw angle on impact, properties of the tissue encountered and internal instabilities of the bullet [Peters et al. 1996]."

Yes this thread is all over the place ...

[Easy]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Last time Easy.

My motivation is I am interested in selling the product through my Canada wide network of associates. But not if it presents a danger to people's goggles or is made of a material such as glass. Simple as that. All my other reasoning is openly stated throughout and you and others have asked or implied that question multiple times and I've addressed it multiple times.

I've answered this question for the LAST TIME. If you make any more accusations and don't stay on topic, I will start having your posts removed from this thread. This is your LAST warning.

:?

Please don't take my statement out of context. I was simply responding to mike's question that i interpreted as a negative insinuation (perhaps wrongly on my behalf). I know what your motivation is and i have made mine clear to you as well. I am not assasinating anything. So as i said to mike i will say to you ... no offense is intended.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Amoki

MikeG is correct, Easy. And here's the little bit of extra stuff that you forgot to quote in its entirety:

https://oa.doria.fi/bitstream/handle...pdf?sequence=1

Most people are more concerned with what happens upon impact.

And the entire contact on flesh argument IS NOT RELEVANT to penetration of a hardened object! Its not the same transfer of energy. Flesh is elastic, a goggle surface is NOT. The fact that people have scratched GLASS with the stuff indicates to me a hardened material that may have the characteristics necessary to penetrate Z87.1 ANSI eye protection. Without *some* material information about the BB's physical properties its almost impossible to calculate if the BB has the potential to penetrate said standard goggles.

And YES when I finally get a bag of this stuff, I intend to give it the standard Canadian 10 foot/full auto test with a 400fps gun, just like we do when we test a new brand of goggle that has no Z87.1 stamp on it, except in this case, we will be testing the BB, not the goggle.

Fair?

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Easy

Please don't take my statement out of context.

Perhaps but, I have been clear about my intent. If someone wants to question it, start another thread, don't do it here. I don't want this to become an Arnie's part 2 and as it is I think I will begin to summarize arguments and chopping down this thread a little. But not until we get some answers.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Flatlander

Ed is the dissipated energy: essentially ALL of the energy that the bullet has (at impact) is transfered (ie.dissipated) into the tissue...the bullet penetrates the tissue and stops so where else can the energy go? If a BB does NOT penetrate and bounces off, not all of the energy of the BB has dissipated into the tissue (or else it wouldn't bounce off).

And this is exactly why I haven't even bothered with the formulas or that line of thinking because all you have to do is use some common sense and the laws of physics and conservation of mass and energy to realize this is the case, which I already pointed out. Energy MUST go somewhere, and the BBBMax product logically transfers more of it to a RIGID target because of the rigidity and non-deforming nature of the product.

To understand it without formulas all you have to do is look at a car accident and look at what crumple zones do to understand how energy is dissipated through object deformation. This is why people survive and walk away from 60km/h head-on collisions. The car absorbs the energy though purpose engineered frames that remain rigid until the application of a suitable force from a predetermined direction...

... much like a plastic BB! Wow. who'da thunk it.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

And the entire contact on flesh argument IS NOT RELEVANT to penetration of a hardened object! Its not the same transfer of energy. Flesh is elastic, a goggle surface is NOT. The fact that people have scratched GLASS with the stuff indicates to me a hardened material that may have the characteristics necessary to penetrate Z87.1 ANSI eye protection. Without *some* material information about the BB's physical properties its almost impossible to calculate if the BB has the potential to penetrate said standard goggles.

And YES when I finally get a bag of this stuff, I intend to give it the standard Canadian 10 foot/full auto test with a 400fps gun, just like we do when we test a new brand of goggle that has no Z87.1 stamp on it, except in this case, we will be testing the BB, not the goggle.

Fair?

Fair.

And it is a good idea to cut this down as you state. An Arnies Part II would be very boring indeed. The main reason i am here is that your original post caught my eye by pure chance and i was hoping of getting more insight into this from a Canadian point of view. So far this thread seems a lot more "constructive" in my humble unqualified opinion.

So would it be safe to assume that and "conclude" that based on the foregoing (and on Flatlander's correct observation) that the flesh impacts caused by the MAX would be no different than plastic bbs at the same velocities? In fact probably not even noticed? (unless we bring the velocities to something like 10 joules then things will probably change a lot).

Though my personal experience is probably not acceptable. In 2 years of use by our team the MAX has not penetrated any mask or goggle. In fact this was the conclusion on the MAX thread over at Arnies [sigh].

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Easy

So would it be safe to assume that and "conclude" that based on the foregoing (and on Flatlander's correct observation) that the flesh impacts caused by the MAX would be no different than plastic bbs at the same velocities? In fact probably not even noticed? (unless we bring the velocities to something like 10 joules then things will probably change a lot).

My personal feeling is that the paper is an attempt to address the accusation that BBBMax is somehow potentially 'lethal' than a BB round. I think that question is more complicated that just the BBBMax round itself, it comes down to velocities and player behavior. A plastic BB can be just as 'lethal' in that definition if the velocity is high enough and the target is unprotected or that protection fails.

I think given the Canadian perspective, field limits here tend to be 400fps @ .20gr for AEG, and 400-450fps for sniper (using a BA at minimum engagement distances or semi-auto), you'd need to do your testing in that range to make any useful determination. As I've said, I'm not really interested in HK or Switzerland as an analog to Canada. The army does not loan us vehicles to play on, the government does not give us land to play on (its all private) and there are no rules about biodegradability unless a field or property owner has that concern, which from what I have seen, largely, they don't.

However, I think Canada and the US is much more focused on safe play though rules and velocity and ammunition restrictions (I chrony guns at all my games and routinely reject players guns that shoot outside these set limits) and here in lies the reason WHY you see a thread like this and why its contraversial here.

I don't know where that line is and the BBBMax information doesn't really address it.

Originally Posted by Easy

Though my personal experience is probably not acceptable. In 2 years of use by our team the MAX has not penetrated any mask or goggle. In fact this was the conclusion on the MAX thread over at Arnies [sigh].

One thing I should point out, when I say goggle, I also mean safety glasses. On private fields we permit the use of certain kinds of safety glasses as opposed to paintball goggles. In my travels through the Arnie's thread, I didn't see this discussed - I don't know if this is an issue in Europe or if there is a goggle-only rule over there.

My tests will involve field player level velocities (400fps full auto) and sniper (450fps semi auto). I should point out that these safety limits evolved here over several years as we found the limits of the safety equipment that people want to play with over here, there is no governing body that made this rule, but, in public and private games (most you can attend) you'll be subject to these velocity restrictions. There are pockets of players that do "HK Rulez" as its called but they do their own thing anyways and will play however they want, but they aren't largely represented on this board.

[mcguyver]

A steel or tungsten core round is designed to penetrate body armour, because it transfers it's energy to a smaller area and does not deform. Even if it's mass is less than a solid lead or jacketed round. This principal has been used for decades, and is well proven.

Deformation does not necessarily mean more injury or damage, especially to hard targets. Deformation of a real gun round inside tissue may cause more damage, depending on velocity and energy, and also fragmentation of the round.

I discount the Levante Labs study out of hand because they make the assertion that a deforming BB causes more damage. Now, they couldn't convince me that water is wet, I'll look elsewhere for a study that doesn't get it so blatantly wrong.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

And this is exactly why I haven't even bothered with the formulas or that line of thinking because all you have to do is use some common sense and the laws of physics and conservation of mass and energy to realize this is the case, which I already pointed out. Energy MUST go somewhere, and the BBBMax product logically transfers more of it to a RIGID target because of the rigidity and non-deforming nature of the product.

To understand it without formulas all you have to do is look at a car accident and look at what crumple zones do to understand how energy is dissipated through object deformation. This is why people survive and walk away from 60km/h head-on collisions. The car absorbs the energy though purpose engineered frames that remain rigid until the application of a suitable force from a predetermined direction...

... much like a plastic BB! Wow. who'da thunk it.

OMG please let's not go down the "crumple zone" anaolgy. I beg you. This will only create another "round and round" she goes effect. lol.

As i said i am not a ballistics expert but:

(A) from my understanding expanding rounds cause more damage to soft targets because they are able to dissipate more energy over a wider area in a short time span. They lose their energy in the target and reduce the chance of injury to bystanders. German police uses the RUAG expanding round for this reason.

(b) Whereas fully jacketed rounds will penetrate, retain their energy and go right through. Potentially killing/injuring more than one one bystander.

Mcguyver -

you are right. The rounds you describe penetrate because they are able to hold on to their energy as they go through a target. An expanding round will lose all its energy on the bullet proof vest.

That doesn't mean they can't kill you. Trauma caused by non penetrating rounds may very well cause lethal internal injuries. Imagine if you will a non penetrating shotgun slug hitting your vest in the chest vs a tungsten round actually penetrating.

That is why the US FIJ actually measure trauma before certifying certain levels of balistic vests. I believe level IIIA vests are theoretically able to allow you to survive a .44 magnum impact (with no penetration) by absorbing the energy before it causes lethal trauma.

If we use that analogy (probably way over the top) then hard bbs will not transfer a lot of energy to the target. They will lose it as they ricochet off a wall or off a person. Soft bbs will flatten and lose their enrgy into the target with (comparatively) less energy left to ricochet or bounce off people.

Now the amount of energy in both cases is probably extremely small and would make little difference.

If we brought our reasoning to an extreme and we were able to measure that, then i think there would be a difference between the energy absorbed by a soft target bewteen a hard vs soft bb on a target.

PICTURE - this is a picture of what a Simunition FX (www.simunition.com) round can do to a full face goggle on full auto from 3 meters!

These rounds are 100% made of soft plastic and filled with paint.

That is 5 to 7 joules of power for each of the 15 rounds that impacted!

Simunition is used in force-on-force (people against people) training all over the world. And has been since the early 90s (invented in Canada by Canadians!).

[Azathoth]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

The issue is a lab report you can't validate the source and credentials of and certificates that are manufacture self-issued certificates - both these issue go to the heart of the credibility of BioVAL and what is marketing versus what is actually a legitimate independent study.

Thats all.

If that is the issue this thread should be locked until you get a bag and shoot them for yourself. Be an independent and critical thinker and disprove the results provided by Levante Labs.

I feel this is a bit of a witch hunt, we've seen how Real steal Pmags perform compared to HK mags etc, but is the materials or design been questioned and the end result was people have gone out of their way to prove Magpuls claims that the pmag is the best mag on the market.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

I was just going to talk to MadMax, he's the resident Canadian engineering genius behind the Tornado grenade to see what he thinks. If anyone could crack this, it him. He was the guy who proved Green Gas and propane were the same thing back in the days when claims were made that Green Gas was some sort of magical special gas. He also invented the AI propane bottle adapter.

I will send some of my BBB max to madmax for testing in a mass spectroscope. Ballistically they make everything else i've shot look like a spitball (aside from maruzen and TM sup grade).


Again this is getting to Arnie levels, this thread should be locked and people should shoot these BB's on their own.

Jay, - Scarecrow,

I would not allow those safety glasses on any game I run, it is NOT safe. I've seen enough eye injuries overseas. The frames are not rated and if they take a BB they will likely break the glasses will fall off the face.

If your concern is breaking glass then these bb's will do that. Ergo, you shouldnt sell the product. Besdies Mach1 already has as exclusive contract for distribution rights of all bioval products in Canada.


EDIT"

I am not affiliated or with bioval or mach1 airsoft. I purchased my own product and tested these BB's on my own against hard targets (7000+ rounds).

STOP PM"ING ME ASKING ME TO SELL YOU SOME!

[Skladfin]

guys... take it easy lol.