Talk:Ballistic gelatin

message: Ballistics gelatin is wholly unsuitable for testing of all low velocity impacts, as well as weapons that cut. It is mentioned very briefly in the article that "... ballistic gelatin does not model the structure of the body", I think a small section explaining the difference in mechanical properties with actual tissue and why the gelatin is useful for ballistic testing ONLY, would be very valuable, since there has been a large increase in misconceptions regarding the material. Mythbusters and Deadliest Warrior especially have unwittingly contributed to the false idea that you can test blunt impacts, knives, arrows, swords, slings, et cetera on gelatin and have a semi-realistic outcome, whereas many of these weapons perform radically different in actual tissue, which has very different mechanical properties. Not much research has been done on the subject (probably because to anyone with knowledge on materials engineering, the differences seem rather...  obvious) but even a small table comparing tensile strengths, maximum strain et cetera with a small comprehensive text about the different behavior at sub-pistol velocities could be very informative to people learning about the stuff.LuxArdens (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsuitable for non-ballistic tests 

message: Can anyone support the claim of electrical similarity besides the various MythBusters episodes, which themselves seem unsupported? — Bitt 20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the "research" in this case may have been as simple as them sticking an ohmmeter into a chunk of meat and into the ballstic gelatin dummy and comparing readings.  Of course, even if it does decently simulate the electrical conductivity of tissue, it should probably go in the footnote about its use on the show, rather than in the main article, since that may well be the only case where anyone cared about its electrical properties.  scot 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't mention ballistics gelatin or people, but the data on gelatin in this paper might help someone who can read it: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a008396.pdf  (As much as I could understand, it seems gelatin does not have a conductance consistent with human tissue - or even consistent with itself over time)  Dedic73 (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrical similarity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ballistic gelatin. 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/20120218212956/http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/effects_of_small_arms.pdf to http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/effects_of_small_arms.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) 21:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The second picture (Terminal performance comparison of 7.62×39mm and 5.45×39mm ammunition in ballistic gelatin) shows effects of full metal jacketed rifle rounds on ballistic soap obviously. Ballistic soap features nearly the same specifications like ballistic gelatine, so effects either in gelatine, soap or human soft tissue (muscle) can be compared. Both simulants are proven and regularly used in wound ballistics (e.g. Kneubuehl B. P., Coupland R., Rothschild M. A., Thali M. Wound Ballistics: Basics and Application. Springer 2011. Kneubuehl B. P. Ballistik. Springer 2018). While elastic, soft and transparent gelatine is used for high-speed-captures and visualization of ultra-short-time effects like bullet deformation or expansion and collapse of the temporal cavity, the cavity is most likely frozen in stiff and plastic soap (like depicted in Pic. No. 2).134.95.33.91 (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture No. 2