Talk:Hydrostatic shock

message: So why former and not the latter?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.23.207 (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Hydrostatic vs Hydrodynamic

message: "The debate between proponents of bullets that are "light and fast" versus bullets that are "slow and heavy" often refers to this phenomenon.
Which bullets cause more hydrostatic shock?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.133.70 (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Specific? 

message: Wikipedia is a fully-public entity, and is used for research purposes by people of all ages - particularly students doing research for schoolwork.
Keeping that in mind - is it truly necessary to describe scientific experimentation on animals in full detail?  I'm a male, mid-30s, and I perused this article looking for information on tissue damage caused during sonic treatment of kidney stones.  I have seen and read enough about human and animal suffering over the years that I consider myself strong enough to read material that most might find disturbing, and I fully realize that a lot of research goes on that many would consider inhumane.  
Despite all that, I still found it gruesome and disturbing when I was reading the article and got to the description of pigs being deliberately shot in the thigh - obviously a non-lethal but very painful injury - all in the name of "science."  
Whether or not you consider the practice of using live animals for ballistics research to be ethical  is totally irrelevant.  BUT, describing the procedure in print in an article such as this seems a little excessive to me.  Not because it is describing scientific research, ethical or not - it is not meant to be deceiving, as far as I can tell.  
Anyway - my suggestion - and I WON'T change it myself, since I am not an expert... I see no reason why the experimentation couldn't be described in a manner such as "research on animal tissue has shown that injury to the hippocampus....."  - and THEN following that with a footnote reference OR a direct link where the reader can find more information.  
In that way, the information is still given and made available - maybe even more so than as originally written - but is less likely to cause sensitive readers any grief.  
I'm not writing this as an anti-gun activist in any way.  But I do know that there are many people in the general population who are disturbed by material that refers to scientific experimentation on animals, especially when such material can come off as sounding inhumane. - DM
:There are a number of Wiki pages which describe animal research with a comparable level of detail.  Some give even more detail.  Effectively communicating a scientific result often requires describing the experiment.  An article on wound ballistics is going to describe wounds.
::Definitely more detail in the experiment is better when it shows how it relates to the rest of the evidence. Since later in the article, hydrostatic shock is described with people being hit in the chest, it's important to show that this experiment shoots pigs in a different area.
::Michael Courtney (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the shock wave does precisely zero damage, yes.  The shockwaves of being shot with an anti-aircraft gun with several thousands of rounds per day, over a period of years, may cause some slight loss of innervation and circulation to the kidneys, but that is all. -Arrkhal 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ETHICS? 

message: Discussion on whether to merge this article with stopping power:
* No - Hydrostatic shock, while closely associated with stopping power, is a concept in its own right, and merging it would make stopping power a bit of an omnibus article. --Orborde 22:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've removed the merge templates. ··gracefool |☺ 23:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Blunt trauma to the spinal cord due to temporary cavity.  Damage inflicted by the temporary cavity is limited to stretching damage, and blunt trauma.  The blunt trauma component can extend for a couple inches around the temporary cavity due to tissue compression.  If this "wave" of compression hits the spinal cord, it can cause instant unconsciousness, exactly like a "rabbit punch."  Arrkhal 01:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Who ever says that hydrostatic shock has been dis-proven is full of bologna. This is only true for wounds caused by small caliber low velocity nonexpanding bullets. These wounds are refered to in medical literature as an "ice pick wound". Wounds caused by high velocity big bore expanding bullets resemble an explosion. There is tremendous tissue damage far from the axis if bullet penetration. Those supposed idiots that write for gun magazines know exactly what they're talking about. They have seen the effects of these weapons many times on the bodies of big game animals.
204.227.223.74 21:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: {sigh}.  Another person who either didn't read or didn't comprehend the article.  Go read stopping power as many times as it takes to understand what's written there, and get back to me.  Arrkhal 22:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baloney 

message: I have a problem with the statement: "The claim that tissue behaves like water is obviously false. Water is an incompressible fluid, while tissue is a compressible solid." First of all, nothing in science is obvious, and the first sentence could be changed into "evidence shows that..." or sth like that. No one claims that tissue behaves like water all the time, but that they can have similar behaviours under some circumstances. Then, saying that water is incompressible is simply wrong. Nothing is incompressible. If water really was, the oceanic level would be roughly 30m higher than it is now, there would be no shock wave in water, and the speed of sound in it would be infinite (later the article correctly quotes the speed 1500 m/s). "less compressible than tissue" would be more appropriate. Finally, I'm not sure that opposing tissue as a solid to water is relevent either. Water is a liquid for most applications, but when very quick phenomena are studied, like the penetration of a bullet, it can behave similarly to a solid. In the end, I think a sentence like "Experiments show that tissue and water behave differently, because they have different compressibility values" would be better. Chacal 00:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incompressible fluid

message: "The claim that tissue behaves like water is obviously false..." That entire line (if not section) has POV and tone issues. I think it should be deleted/rewritten. Adropofreason 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: So, how long has this hydrostatic shock [sic] debate been going on, and how contentious will it get before it is finally resolved?  Will those on either side ever be able to admit that they were wrong?  
Anyway, the actual article needs a serious rewrite to get it up to the standards of the better articles on Wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.121.20 (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reasonably certain the debate has been going on for roughly a century. Rsemmes92 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debates in the Gun Community are Funny 

message: The first sentence defines the term as a theory and briefly describes it.  The second sentence states that there is supporting evidence (Many references are cited later in the article).  The third sentence gives some context.  Given the amount of supporting evidence cited in the main body, asserting that the theory is supported with scientific evidence is a reasonable component of the introduction.  Remote wounding effects are not seriously doubted in the scientific literature, and the last significant objection was published 19 years ago and relied on a personal communication that did not agree with the findings that were published the following year (by RF Bellamy).  This objection is discussed frankly.Michael Courtney (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The article contains this wording:
"The FBI recommends that loads intended for self-defense and law enforcement applications meet a minimum penetration requirement of 12” in ballistic gelatin [8]. Maximizing the ballistic pressure wave effects requires transferring maximum energy in a penetration distance that meets this requirement. In addition, bullets that fragment and meet minimum penetration requirements generate higher pressure waves than bullets which do not fragment."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's the FBI article I've read regarding 'stopping power' the author goes out of his way to assert that HS does not exist. He spends entire pages describing how the only reliable ways to stop a human being are incapacitation through CNS disruption (fast) or blood loss (slow). The requirements for deep penetration and fragmentation were in order to directly impact major organs, not induce HS. This is a hell of a spin job, however.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.82.22 (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems to be full of that kind of thing. 96.242.81.80 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBI 

message: As a casual reader with no knowledge of the area, I cannot help but notice that whoever wrote this article is firmly of the opinion that hydrostatic shock exists.  Note that where opinions supporting this point of view are cited, the author(s) are keen to point out evidence which backs up those opinions, while dissenting opinions are attacked.  Furthermore, there is a clear difference in the use of language: the two major dissenters here (Fackler and McPherson) both 'claimed', while supporters of the theory 'noted', 'described', 'showed', 'demonstrated'; in other words, the case against hydrostatic shock is given as opinion, while the case for hydrostatic shock is given as fact.
I know little about the subject, but I can spot a biased article.  If there is no real debate in the scientific community as to the existence of hydrostatic shock, then this should be stated.  If there is debate, the reader should know why without clear bias.
I am interested to note that one of the contributors to this discussion is Michael Courtney, whose own work is frequently cited in the article and who has an obvious professional bias towards the existence of hydrostatic shock.  While it is pleasing that an expert in the field is contributing to this page, the fact that he is so clearly on one side of the argument could itself suggest bias.  (It is, perhaps, more worrying that, while Courtney and Courtney are cited in footnote 15 as a source for the repudiation of Fackler's opinion, there is no such suggestion in the body, where their research is regurgitated as fact.)
I think this needs a clean up by a neutral party.  It certainly is curiously schizophrenic at the moment; on the one hand debating the existence of hydrostatic shock, and on the other hand giving some detailed outcomes for recent research.  One way or another, the linguistic bias should be cleaned up. 62.253.112.209 (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Courtney and Courtney have had their terminal ballistics work related to the topic published in medical journals including Neurosurgery, NeuroImage, Brain Injury, and Injury.  Are these journals not peer-reviewed?  Then how can one argue that no one agrees with it?  Since their findings were first published, has there been any credible disagreement published in a peer-reviewed journal?  Other viewpoints meeting Wikipedia standards for reliable sources can certainly be included, but gun discussion forums do not meet Wikipedia standards as reliable sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.94.205 (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was drawing attention to Dr. Courtney's long established history of going online and deliberately using floods of irrelevant citations to create imaginary support for his beliefs. He should not be allowed to control this article unchallenged. I would point to this articles mention of the Borden institute's studies on wound ballistics (he uses them to support hydrostatic shock) in fact the paper's content is quite clear in its rejection of ballistic pressure waves as an important mechanism of wounding due to the incredibly small number of cases where it is even a possible explanation. The specific reference to 10% of fractures being indirect is hugely out of context, failing to note work that showed the pressure wave falling with with incredible speed, so much that the fractures would require bullets passing within less than a centimeter of the bone. His references to the lithotripsy imply that it causes wounding, that is not what the linked papers assert. As for publications by his team in the journals you named, on topics related to ballistics, I can't find any reference to them. His own website links to arXiv preprints rather than to the appearances in peer-reviews journals. Discussion of the validity of hydrostatic shock is secondary to this element of the discussion, we are trying to establish if Dr Courtney is a trustworthy source (given his clear propensity for cherry picking data I would say he is not) and even if he is if he should be allowed the near total authorship of this article that he appears to have.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.81.80 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming that editors are acting in good faith is a key idea on Wikipedia.  You do not seem to be extending that assumption in this case.  There isn't much in the article that isn't well supported by the citations. Google scholar searches on "Courtney ballistic pressure wave" and "Courtney hydrostatic shock" provide links to their material that has appeared in peer reviewed journals as well as the arXiv material.  The Bellamy material available from the Borden institute seems to be quite open minded toward ballistic pressure waves as a wounding mechanism.  Please provide a page number and a more detailed citation to support your claim if you've found a clear outright "rejection of ballistic pressure waves as an important wounding mechanism" in the Borden Institute material cited in this article.  Have you read the recent article in Neurosurgery on hydrostatic shock?  It seems pretty much in agreement with the current article here.Support.and.Defend (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not making the assumption that he's acting in good faith because, provably, he is not. Evidence against hydrostatic shock has been carefully excised from the article when he makes citation to papers that specifically deny that hydrostatic shock is capable of reliably causing damage (Bellamy 136 and 153, http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/conventional_warfare/chapter4/Pages26-49.pdf [unless we count "within a centimeter" as remote wounding and if we do it should be noted because the result is hugely misleading otherwise]; from the FBI field manual page 16, http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/conventional_warfare/chapter4/Pages26-49.pdf [noting methodological flaws in the idea of hydrostatic shock as a reliable wounding mechanism]). Several section of the article are taken whole cloth from Courtney's work without noting that fact (about half the article is stolen from here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21502666/Scientific-Evidence-for-%E2%80%9CHydrostatic-Shock%E2%80%9D). Wikipedia is not the place for Dr Courtney to attempt republishing his material to a larger audience. Why would the article from Neurosurgery *not* be in agreement with his page? They were written almost entirely by the same person.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.81.80 (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone and Impartiality 

message: The issue of whether the article text accurately reflects the cited sources should be discussed without making personal attacks.  The article cites Bellamy in the paragraph that reads
So the key question seems to be whether Bellamy supports the Fackler claim of “no cases of bones being broken, or major vessels torn, that were not hit by the penetrating bullet.  In only two cases, an organ that was not hit (but was within a few cm of the projectile path), suffered some disruption” or whether they provide supporting evidence for distant injuries.
The Bellamy citation does not deny hydrostatic shock as a wounding mechanism.  Bellamy cites Harvey's conclusion that “stress waves probably do not cause any tissue damage” (p. 136), but Bellamy seems to have an open mind that Harvey's interpretation might not be definitive because he also writes “the possibility that stress waves from a penetrating projectile might also cause tissue damage cannot be ruled out.” (p. 136)  The WDMET data includes a case of a lung contustion resulting from a hit to the shoulder.  If Bellamy is so convinced that distant injuries do not occur, then why does the figure caption (4-40, p. 149) say, “The pulmonary injury may be the result of a stress wave.”   He also describes the possibility that hit to a soldier's trapezius muscle caused temporary paralysis due to “the stress wave passing through the soldier's neck indirectly caused cervical cord dysfunction.” (p. 155)
In addition to stress waves, Bellamy also describes shear waves as a possible mechanism of indirect injuries in the WDMET data.  The distance of 1 cm for breaking human bones on p. 153 is an extrapolation from a Chinese experiment in animals.  How does this  effect Bellamy's estimate that 10% of the fractures in the WDMET data may be the result of indirect injuries? Does Bellamy state that in each case in the WDMET data the fracture was within 1 cm of the bullet path?   In addition, even if there is a 1 cm distance maximum for broken bones due to shear waves, this maximum does not seem to apply in abdominal injuries.  Bellamy writes, “The abdomen is one body region in which damage from indirect effects may be common.” (p.150)  Bellamy describes the injuries shown in Figures 4-42 and 4-43 writing, “The damage shown in these examples extends far beyond the tissue that is likely to direct contact with the projectile.” (p. 150)
In addition to providing examples from the WDMET data for indirect injury due to propagating shear and stress waves, Bellamy also expresses an openness to the idea of pressure transients propagating via blood vessels can cause indirect injuries.  “For example, pressure transients arising from an abdominal gunshot wound might propagate through the vena cavae and jugular venous system into the cranial cavity and cause a precipitous rise in intracranial pressure there, with attendant transient neurological dysfunction.”  (p. 154)
In summary, at no point does Bellamy suggest that indirect injuries due to hydraulic effects in tissues do not occur.  He points out numerous examples in the WDMET data of cases of that seem to be examples of indirect injuries.  The WDMET data definitely does not support the Fackler claim of “no cases of bones being broken, or major vessels torn, that were not hit by the penetrating bullet.  In only two cases, an organ that was not hit (but was within a few cm of the projectile path), suffered some disruption.”Support.and.Defend (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WDMET data

message: In the book Neuromancer, a character states that he had once seen a multiple assassination in Ankara in which a single grenade was tossed into a swimming pool and killed the people in it via hydrostatic shock.  This article only discusses the term in the context of a bullet hitting a single target.  Did the Neuromancer character use the term incorrectly, or should there perhaps be a disambiguation sentence at the top of this article redirecting to a differently titled article for the other phenomenon, of a shock wave traveling through a body of water?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grenade in a swimming pool 

message: I changed this sentence in the first paragraph:
"Proponents of bullets that are "light and fast" such as a .22-250 remington versus bullets that are "slow and heavy" such as a 9mm pistol round often refer to this phenomenon."
To:
"Proponents of cartridges that are "light and fast" such as the 9x19mm Parabellum versus cartridges that are "slow and heavy" such as the .45 ACP round often refer to this phenomenon."
Hydrostatic shock discussions do go back and forth with the size vs speed argument, but comparing a high velocity rifle round like the .22-250 to a pistol round is comparing apples to oranges.
First, the bullet is only the projectile, which has little to do with its speed. The cartridge is what goes into the firearm and contains the bullet and powder. Second, the applications of the cartridges are completely different and not comparable. The .22-250 is a very high velocity rifle round often used as a varmint cartridge. The 9mm is a high velocity pistol round. There are rifles in a chambered for 9mm, and many sub-machine guns, but they would never be used in place of a .22-250. Third, the 9mm is often often used as a proponent of the hydrostatic shock discussion when comparing it to larger and slower rounds. Most often in the firearm community the (sometimes heated) discussion and comparison is 9mm vs .45 ACP.
This is my first non-typo edit, so this long justification may not be necessary, but I wanted to explain myself. Also, I don't mean the above to sound snippy, no offense intended to the original author.
Kolvir (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed cartridge comparison in first paragraph. 

message: Hydrostatic shock describes the damaging or destructive effects of abrupt pressure changes in a semi- or incompressible medium.  Hydrostatic shock is what makes the pipes knock in your house when you rapidly shut off a faucet.  It is also what sometimes blows out the seals in a power steering pump or automatic transmission.
The problem is that if someone read this article they would never know that the general definition of hydrostatic shock has nothing to do with gun-nut talk.
Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrostatic shock is a general term 

message: The hooey published by ammunition manufacturers or their spokesman, such as Chuck Yeager, should be removed from this. This isn't a billboard for their products and the fact that they have an agenda should disqualify their comments. If they have hard, fast data and experimental results to share then they should publish those but leave their products out.
This entire section should be expunged and doing so would raise the quality of the article considerably.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.11.35 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and I just removed the advertising. Actually, the whole article has serious neutrality and sourcing issues, and needs to be cleaned up. ROG5728 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ammo Manufacturers - Hydrostatic shock as a factor in selection of ammunition 

message: :Agreed, and I just removed the advertising. Actually, the whole article has serious neutrality and sourcing issues, and needs to be cleaned up. ROG5728 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate is well known.  The trouble is a lot of support for the theory has been published in the last decade, and the naysayers have published almost nothing in venues that qualify as reliable sources per wikipedia standards.  Discussion forum posts don't count, and Gary Roberts has published nothing in a peer reviewed journal or other scholarly venue.  Wound Ballistics Review is defunct.  The evidence that has been published in the last decade seems fairly convincing, and most of the "other side" of the story (HWFE, etc.) is over 20 years old.  This older material seemed compelling at the time, but compared with more recent articles in NeuroImage, Brain Injury, Neurosurgery, forensic studies from Iraq and Afghanistan, and evidence from Europe, the old material is just weak.  The older material basically was an argument from absence, and now that there is published data, the old arguments from absence just don't hold water.  Face it, the naysayers could have easily published replies in the peer reviewed journals answering the new findings.  The fact that they choose not to speaks volumes.  If you have new negative information from the last decade from a verifiable source that meets wikipedia standards as a reliable source, feel free to add it.  But as far as I can tell, all the reliable sources are well represented in the article.Support.and.Defend (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:   WP:NPOV states, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  The claim of "serious neutrality and sourcing issues" needs to be supported by citing reliable sources with significant views which have not been represented in the article.  If the editor(s) claiming that the neutrality is in dispute are unable to provide reliable sources to other significant views that are not represented in the article, then the POV tag should be removed.  Support.and.Defend (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

text: How many of the original sources have you actually read?  I've fact checked many of them and find them to be accurately represented in there use here.  For example, how do you think the J. Krajsa citation twists or misrepresents the original source?  How does the Col. Frank Chamberlain, M.D. citation misrepresent the original source?  How does the citation of Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research misrepresent the original source?  Support.and.Defend (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you wrote the entire article so of course you don't see its issues. A number of those issues have already been described here on the talk page, but there are too many to list. Lots of weasel wording, misrepresented sources, poor use of quotes (and overuse of quotes), etc. The whole article is a mess. ROG5728 (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim of NPOV issue

message: I propose that everything on this page authored by Michael Courtney be removed. He uses "citations" to assert statements that are not in line with the linked material. Furthermore, there is a conflict of interest here: Michael and Amy Courtney sell ammunition based upon their "hydrostatic shock" theory. There are significant problems with his references, including the Krajsa reference. Half of the patients selected in this reference were intoxicated at their time of death, indicating a high likelihood of alcoholism. Abuse of alcohol increases the likelihood of small subcortical infarcts and primary subcortical haemorrhages. Even moderate drinking of alcohol increases risk of both intracerebral and subarachnoid hemorrhage. The presence of micro-hemorrhages does not constitute any reasonable expectation of increase incapacitation potential in a firearm.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.84.20 (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, no wonder this page is so heavily in favour of hydrostatic (or more accurately hydrodynamic) shock. Michael Courtney seems to have authored almost all of it 222.164.146.23 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Courtney 

message: As was mentioned in a comment several years ago,hydrostatic/hydraulic shock is a more general term than its application to theories of firearm wounds. For examplic, "hydraulic shock" is a common term (sometimes called water hammer) regarding the movement of pressurized fuilds in conduits, etc. The article (which honestly, is pretty POV....no objective comparison between stances is given...anything not supporting the theory seems to be explained away or spun) is only dealing with the application of a concept to a specific medium. Either the article title should change (suggest move to hydrostatic shock (firearms), or something similar) or disambiguation should be included. this reads like an advertisement for certain types of firearms/ammunition.12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading article title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hydrostatic shock (firearms). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216044223/http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/tbipwave.pdf to http://www.ballisticstestinggroup.org/tbipwave.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hydrostatic shock article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."
Yet it seems to have become just that.
I found the article very hard to read.  It's thread is hard to follow, and the material mixes discussion of subsonic and supersonic projectiles in a manner making it difficult to determine which statements apply to which type, etc.  It gave me a headache of tl;dr magnitude.
Seems to need a rewrite in general to make it easier to follow.  After all, this is an encyclopedia, the purpose being that John Q can read it and get a general idea of the subject matter.  If further, more technical information is desired, he can look up the citations, or go to a University library and look up peer reviewed, scholarly papers published in relevant journals.
The discussion by scot, "Random Collection of Thoughts," although out of the scope of the Talk page, was very easy to read.  The construction and style were well thought out, and it flowed well, especially for a random set of ideas.
Perhaps he can do a rewrite and submit it for Wikipedia publication.
----------
"But it wasn't the bullet that laid him to rest,
 Was the low spark of high-heeled boys." Steve Winwood
104.174.70.130 (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest complete rewrite 

message: I changed the page hydraulic shock, which previously redirected here, to a disambiguation page, as the term may also refer to a water hammer according to that page. The redirect shock effect may also warrant review to see if it has a more general meaning. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect changed