> if someone chimes-in to educate us as to what she meant to say,

What she means is that there are HUGE guns that actually use handguns as projectiles instead of bullets as is classically the case. She is right, it doesn't matter if the handgun is loaded or not, you can still be shot by one.

Yes they are projectiles, so they are akin to an arrow. The big difference is that a bow has stored energy that is directed into the projectile (arrow). Spears and boomerangs do not - they are thrown.

They did have a device that gave mechanical advantage for spear throwing called a woomera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woomera_(spear-thrower)

I guess we'll never know if they would have arrived at the bow.

spears and boomerangs are also projectiles.

Just change archery to projectiles and it's 100% correct.
They just didnt have bows yet...

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by pumkinandstorm.

Thanks Eric.
*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Dog-barks-invents-projectile-water-farts-in-the-process

http://videosift.com/video/Dog-barks-invents-projectile-water-farts-in-the-process

@Procrastinatron That's my take as always, on the underlying nature of propaganda/newspeak/mass mind control in the 21st Century-CNN is an extreme example consisting of bobbleheads spewing shit-think and while producing infotainment, agenda-establishing dialogs, or a window into human tragedy, the parent company Turner Broadcasting, sucks cock by choice. There is ALWAYS an agenda in mind that works for a very few who hold the keys to our economic shackles-Follow the money, follow the power, and discover children, the true nature of the bullshit-

...Wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the mentality of the strawman here, all the signs of an addictive personality, spewing the party-line like so much projectile vomit.

I thought you might be overestimating the force of a thrown baseball as compared to the steel ball bearing, so I tried to do some research and run numbers to compare.

Some googling says a baseball should weigh 5-5.25 ounces (about 1/3 of a pound).

Another page and some quick calculations that I might have screwed up[ (4*pi*.5*.5*.5)/3*.283 ] say that the ball bearing might weigh about .15 pounds -- a bit under half of the baseball.

On the other hand, the fastest pitch ever recorded in MLB (by Nolan Ryan) was 108.1 MPH or 158.5 feet per second. Harder to find data on "muzzle" velocity of a slingshot, but this page suggests that some people claim some slingshot projectiles can travel at 300 feet per second, but he argues that 180 to 200 fps is probably a more realistic high end for a .50 caliber lead ball (which would probably/possibly? be heavier than the 1" steel ball since lead is more dense). Anyway, there is at the very least a slight advantage to the slingshot here as compared to the fastest pitch ever recorded in MLB. Considering the draw length and pull strength of the slingshot in the video, I'd say it is probably actually much faster than the conservative 180-200 fps number from that page.

So then you've got @cosmovitelli 's formula (mass times velocity squared). The mass of the baseball is probably double that of the steel ball, but the velocity is probably 25-90% faster (or even more) and then squared. That probably overcomes the disadvantage in mass and then some.

Then again, this is all fairly academic as you suggested because the lethality of the bullets/projectiles is dependent on them being small enough to puncture, tear flesh, break/shatter bones, etc. Apply that kinetic energy to a very small impact site. However, in spite of its large size, I bet that steel ball could do a lot of damage given its kinetic energy -- which is what I would take away from their claims of it "hitting harder". I wouldn't want to stand in front of a Nolan Ryan fastball either, but given the choice between that and the slung steel ball... I'd take the plunk and have somebody take my base for me.

I was just about to question the listed weight of the projectile as well.

The main armament of the Scharnhorst-class battlecruisers had the same calibre and fired shells weighing in at around 250kg, so I figured Atomic Annie to be in the same ball park. Even the eggs Dora lobbed around were only about 7t apiece.

Although it takes the fun out of the process, WP lists the weight at 364kg.

Edit: http://videosift.com/video/The-Atomic-Cannon-1953-Test-Footage

It had a 15 kiloton equivalent detonation energy, not a 15 ton projectile.

I'll wager none of them will make that mistake again in a hurry. I walked out in front of a car on my 16th birthday. Entirely my fault and I was lucky to escape with just bruises. 9 Years later I am still jumpy as fuck whenever I'm crossing, and I kinda think thats how it should be. You spend your life around cars and you forget that they are massive projectiles and you are in their path. Close calls like these make good reminders - good vaccines.

Amen brother.

"this gun has a cool feature where you press the trigger..."

and projectiles fly out of the barrel?

Um, well, if that's your only complaint . . Wings can actually be useful for a ship that does both atmosphere and space flight. Like the shuttle. It has wings. And it's a space ship . . . of sorts.

Let's see . . . Lasers. Yeah, we've already had lasers debunked as a weapon in space. Unless there's some breakthrough later on. But, that said, it wouldn't be visible as there's no atmosphere to reflect it back to us. It would be traveling at the speed of light.

Explosions would be limited to the amount of oxygen in the ship being destroyed. They wouldn't create sonic waves or sound, or cause the nearby camera to rattle.

Ships wouldn't fly in arcs. That's atmosphere. In space, a ship can turn 180° and still be going the same direction. Babylon 5 is a good example of newtonian physics in action while in space.

Humans wouldn't be flying small ships. It'd kill us. Literally. Unless we have inertial dampeners like in Star Trek, making those turns and twists would destroy our bodies. Just ask a pilot.

Lastly, anyone advanced enough to do FTL and navigate massive star clusters with pinpoint precision who DOESN'T have a targeting system that can predict a ships movements and then fire a at speed of light weapon and destroy it, well, failed somewhere.

Not to mention, we'd use missiles that would self-destruct. Fire a physical projectile at near speed of light velocities and it not hit it target? Well, you may have just fired a bullet that would take out your space base in 1,000 years. It's be fruitless, require tons of energy and end up killing yourself with your own bullet.

But I'm glad we focused on wings. The only thing that has a real legitimate use in space travel.

Downvote for the lack of projectile vomiting. ;^)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

28 mm D.I.L.D.O. Sling-shot projectile eh?