jason....easy man.    

I think, 'knowing' george (as much as one can get to know someone from reading his posts over many years)....I, and I think most of the jokers understood that george started the thread in FUN....not so much poking fun at those who like play around with the 'scientific method'...and more than seriously looking for an answer to the question.

Jason, it seems that every alteration changes dynamic spine. Best I could come up with. Still fewer variables.

Got close to the test this morning. I chose two sets of my barreled shafts and put 145 grain Snuffers on 4 arrows and 190 grain Ribteks on three. Final weight of all was within 5 grains of 600. The shafts with the heavier heads were stiffer (90# vs. 85#) and lighter in weight before putting on the broadheads. I didn't attempt to calculate FOC, but it was obviously and noticeably different. 28 1/2" BOP.

I shot them first at 20 yards from my 50# Super Kodiak to make sure the arrows shot well. Backed up to 65 yards, which was just shy of my point-on distance with field points. My point-on with the broadheads was less, closer to 60 yards based on where my arrows hit the ground in front of the target. I could tell no difference in the two sets, pulling all the way to the head. I'm not good enough at that range to be specific, but if there had been a distinct difference in their performance I think it would have been noticeable.

I know this is not the test George wanted (different heads, not horizontal), but it accomplished my objective. I don't have to shoot the two sets differently, which is what I wanted to know. I'll be hunting with them. Within 40 yards I'm sure I won't be able to tell the difference.

Don,

Just a thought, but those Grizzlys are considerably longer than the Ribteks, aren't they?  Going to play heck with "point on"...


Here's a parable about testing.


A scientist wanted to learn about the leaping abilities of frogs. To do so, he placed a frog on his laboratory table, stood behind the frog and shouted, "jump, frog, jump!" The frog jumped. The scientist carefully measured the distance of that first leap. He consistently repeated this procedure a number of times to provide reliable and valid statistical research.

He then surgically removed one of the front legs of the frog.  Placing the frog on the table, the scientist once again stood behind him and yelled, ,,jump, frog, jump!" Again, responding to the noise, the frog leaped forward and the scientist carefully measured the distance. The scientist had the frog jump with three legs a number of times to gather his scientific data. He then surgically removed another leg of the frog and repeated the experiment. He repeated each step of the experiment, measuring the ability of the frog to jump with four, then three, then two, then one leg. Finally, the scientist cut off the last leg and placed the frog on the table, stood behind the frog and yelled, `jump, frog, jump!" Not surprisingly, the frog did not leap. The scientist yelled again but there was no response. The scientist finally stomped his feet, clapped his hands, and screamed as loudly as he could, but still the frog did not move.

The scientist reflected on what he had seen and contemplated the meaning of this experiment. Finally, he sat up straight in his chair, and with an excited expression on his face that disclosed his discovery of new scientific insight, he wrote down, "After amputation of all four legs, frog became deaf."

Maybe the frog was too tired from all the jumping ?

QuoteOriginally posted by Jeff Strubberg:


Here's a parable about testing...

The scientist reflected on what he had seen and contemplated the meaning of this experiment. Finally, he sat up straight in his chair, and with an excited expression on his face that disclosed his discovery of new scientific insight, he wrote down, "After amputation of all four legs, frog became deaf."

Was this the same "scientist" who came up with the global warming theory?

No, the global warming scientist"is the son of the scientist that warned everyone about the dangers of soil wind erosion in southwest Kansas and the Oklahoma panhandle in the late 1920s.

Where is Krister when we need him?? He likes these ones. While you guys are deliberating this one I'm headed to Oz to do penetration tests on everything that moves. See you in three weeks! Get this figured out will ya.

somebody mentioned SPAM. SPAM is the perfect medium to gauge penetration on! it contains a homogeneous blend of muscle fiber, arteries, and adipose material to simulate an animals actual
structure.
the thin recycled beer cans that constitute the covering SPAM is contained in perfectly imitates the strength of the bone expected to be encountered in north american game animals.
the lubricity afforded by the adipose material simulates the blood that bathes the head and arrow shaft during penetration.
the problem i have with doing the test is that i can't find SPAM.
i can find a manufactured meat product that also contains pork skin and other contaminates, "light spam", whatever that is, "chipotle spam" and other abominations.
perhaps someone that has access to SPAM can do the test.

Not sure I wanna be that close to SPAM...

Particularly not after the great SPAM cake incident in Ohio...

Jeff, it was Snuffers and Ribteks, and yes, they are different lengths. I compensated as best as I could. Regardless, I know now that I don't have to shoot the two types of arrows differently.

I spent some years designing scientific experiments professionally at a university, and I can tell you this one is tough. Almost impossible to change only one variable, which is crucial to accurate testing.

George, you are a baaaad boy.

You fellers are a LOT smarter than I thought you were....

Not to highjack the thread, but, larryh, you're right, Spam is perfect for testing penetration. I think the can is a little too tough, so I wrapped it in deer skin that was soaked to get it back to the original texture. It took quite a few cans to get enough for a decent target.

It was a waste of time, though, because I kept getting pass-throughs. Not to mention that the target mysteriously disappeared in the night... and that smell!!

Jeff, Ohio Spam cake??

Gotta be someone else here who remembers the Ohio SPAM retirement cake...

You think SPAM is ugly?  Try SPAM with frosting...

You need a knife of good quality and someone who knows how to keep it razor sharp to cut one of these babies. Both were lacking at this event. And that's all I'm gonna say about it.  





  The Spam Wars

It was the oil dripping out of the bottom that made it so funny, Tom !

"Man this knife is dull!"

 

That looks suspiciously like Dean "Haggis" Torges' beard... I knew somebody would remember. Ahhh, the good 'ol days...

One fellow who's name escapes me showed up at the Howard Hill World Championship with a Spam can attached to his quiver.

Thanks for that link, Tom.

I just reread the whole Spam thread. Took an hour and a half, and had me laughing out loud.

I was there Jeff, but had the good sense not to ask for a piece.

Was it maple syrup icing? Yum! OK, back to the topic.

Topic? Was there a topic?