Talk:Hydrostatic shock

Hydrostatic vs Hydrodynamic

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

More Specific?

"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)

I'm not sure, but I would think the bullet with the higher kinetic energy would cause greater pressure waves. Thus it is not really a question of "light and fast" vs. "slow and heavy." 81.209.35.6 (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

ETHICS?

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)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crux1234 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So if the bullet lodges in a person’s body, does the shock wave still do as much damage as if the bullet passes through the body?

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)

Why does the article link to a page that contains simply a copy of it, crediting Wikipedia? Seems kind of pointless. --Vadim

Perhaps someone with medical training could elaborate? --Anders Törlind

I found a few web pages that contend the hydrostatic shock effect of bullet penetration; that is they do not believe that bullets damage humans in this way. No real science or pathology either way though. --drj

Merge?

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)
• I meant merge the section on hydrostatic shock from stopping power to here, not vice-versa. ··gracefool |☺ 06:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• No - Even with this new information regarding the original intention of merging, the article stopping power needs some sort of summary. Although some of the information in stopping power could be merged, bullets have special regard to hydrostatic shock, and that information should be kept in the article stopping power. --DarthFredd
• No - Hydrostatic shock is extra wounding caused by the shock waves inside the body, caused by the passage of the bullet. Any scientific evidence I've read suggests that Stopping Power (the damage that puts a target down) is loss of blood, nerve function and shock. --Eon

Okay, I've removed the merge templates. ··gracefool |☺ 23:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Can anymore evidence be cited in this topic? I have personal experiances that would suggest to me the validity of the workings of hydrostatic shock, though it takes a round of considerably higher velocity then anything that can be fired from a handgun. Try instead a 200 grain round from a .30-378 Weatherby traveling at around 3,400 fps. I have personally seen this combination drop deer and larger size animals instantly, even when no wounds were inflicted that should have been immediatly fatal. I'm not saying one way or another if the subject in question is a valid idea, however if someone knows of some more evidence it would be nice to see it.

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)

Ok, but what about the exist wounds. I think hydrostactic may be a misnomer but parts of the body have a resonance.

Baloney

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)Tlaloc

{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)

"Tissue does behave similarly enough to water that a sonic pressure wave can be created by a bullet impact, generating pressures in excess of 100 atmospheres. However, a device known as the lithotriptor, commonly used to break up kidney stones, produces sonic pressure waves of approximately 5 times the amplitude of those caused by bullets. Up to 2000 such pressure waves are used in a single treatment session, with no damage to soft tissues whatsoever." - This comparison is ludicrous.

A lithotriptor prodcues tiny, highly focused waves from a small emitter. A 5.56mm bullet travelling at over 900 m/s results in a near-instananeous energy transfer in the order of 1800 joules, nothing like what a lithotriptor can generate. And since it's a broad spectrum physical impact, the affected tissues, because the shock waves generated are of far lower frequency than those produced by an ultrasonic instrument, are wrenched back and forth over a much greater distance by the pressure wave. It is usually localised by the shock absorbing affects of tissue, and therefore does not merit much discussion, however, in an area such as the brain, the pressure waves generated cannot dissipate, and cause severe damage as the brain tissue is compressed against the hard cranium. As a footnote, lithtriptors have been known to cause renal capillary damage, among other problems, which can lead to renal failure.

Dallas 01:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't exist. Take two beer cans. Drink one. Go ahead and open the other one. Sit them both side-by-side down range. Shoot each of them with a high power (1000+ ft/s) .177 pellet rifle. The empty can will have a small entry hole and a somewhat bigger exit hole. The other can will be torn almost in half. Here's the kicker: The tear in the can most of the time is nowhere near the exit hole. Its usually near the entrance. What's tearing the can?

209.134.164.170 20:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What's tearing the can? The same stuff that makes you burp after you have drunk the first can before handling your gun: carbon dioxide. When it's released by the entry of the pellet, the pressure will tear the can wall (same as if you open the can, but the top is stronger than the wall). Not convinced? Alright: Try shooting a plastic bag filled with water (entirely) and closed tight with your pellet rifle. Does the bag burst, or does it just leak water from two holes? Herringgull2 (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The same results can be obtained by filling the can with water, milk, diesel or any other fluid, with the lid open or closed doesn't matter much, therefore the theory that carbon dioxide is responsible is disproven, as eliminating that factor does not alter the effect.

This effect isn't related to carbon dioxide. This is simply the projectile transferring kinetic energy to the liquid, causing it to move radially away from the projectile, causing pressure within the can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.142.9.22 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Incompressible fluid

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)

Tone

"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)

Debates in the Gun Community are Funny

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)

I'm reasonably certain the debate has been going on for roughly a century. Rsemmes92 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

There have been many debates in the history of science where the side that is wrong never really admits that they were wrong. However, eventually all scientists die, and the new generation of scientists tends to believe the side that has better support in the published data. Sometimes it takes a generation or two for wrong ideas to fall out of favor. But repeatable experiment usually wins in the end. The scientific method is a slow process; in many cases revolutions are quick; in other cases, change takes a generation.Michael Courtney (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Random collection of thoughts

I've been thinking recently about the topic of hydrostatic shock, and I figured I'd go ahead and do a brain dump, with some observations and questions that I have.

High speed projectiles appear to have three distinct effects when hitting an object. We'll assume ballistic gelatin for now, as it's standardized and roughly replicates tissue.

1. Hydrostatic shock. This is a compression wave that travels through the medium--in other words, a sound wave. And with regards to comments above, water IS slightly compressible, otherwise compression waves would NOT travel through it.
2. Temporary cavitation. This is tissue that is displaced by the projectile, but springs back. Unlike the compression wave, which travels at the speed of sound in the medium, this is a displacement wave, and travels much slower, though it can readily exceed the speed of the projectile. This effect only exists in elastic mediums, like ballistic gelatin, which will spring back wherever the tensile strength of the material is not exceeded.
3. Permanent cavitation. This is the hole that remains after the medium comes to rest. This is cause by stressing the material to beyond its elastic limits, typically by direct contact of the projectile, but may also result from remote stretching exceeding the material strength, such as the "splash" of a high speed impact crater.

All of these are demonstrable, and measurable. A hydrophone will measure the hydrostatic shock in μPa, the temporary cavity can be seen in high speed photographs (and its size and speed estimated from them), and the permanent cavity volume is readily measured by filling with fluid, and its perimeter may be estimated if a transparent medium is used. That these phenomena exist is pretty much beyond question. The question is, how much impact does each have in relation to wounding? This is where the issue becomes very murky.

Permanent cavities are sufficient to cause lethal wounds; this can be readily demonstrated by looking at wounds by low velocity penetrations, such as knife wounds and similar mechanical trauma. These impacts produce negligible amounts of hydrostatic shock and temporary cavities, and kill by direct destruction of vital organs and blood loss.

Temporary cavities are more contentious, but are again sufficient to cause lethal wounds. Many organs are relatively inelastic, and can be damaged by stretching; this damage may arguably be called a permanent cavity, and shows up in ballistic gelatin as radial tears along the wound path, largest near the point of entry. A good example of a temporary cavity with little or no hydrostatic shock or permanent cavity is blunt trauma such as a punch to the abdomen. This elastically displaces the tissue, tears blood vessels, and can rupture organs. An example of this is the ruptured appendix said to have claimed Houdini's life.

Now for the most contentious part, the effect of hydrostatic shock on wounding. Various assertions are made about wave pressures required for incapacitation, ranging from 45 psi to 1500 psi. Information on where the pressure is measured, or how the pressure waves attenuate as they propagate through the body, doesn't seem to be available. The body is not a homogeneous medium, and compression waves reflect and refract significantly at the junction between areas of dissimilar density. This doesn't necessarily cause greater attenuation, however. Just like the internal reflection in an optic fiber, certain conditions in an acoustic medium can reduce attenuation and cause sound to travel much farther than the inverse square law would predict.

A lithotripter, according to one reference I found, generates pressure waves on the order of 100 MPa, while the hydrostatic shock causing value of 1500 psi you cite translates to 10 MPa. While some tissue destruction has been shown to happen from lithotripter use, the most significant side effects appear to be greater risk for hypertension and adult onset diabetes, not sudden loss of consciousness. An examination of the methods by which these shockwaves can cause cell damage and hemorrhaging showed that it was due to cavitation, which is caused by negative pressure waves in excess of 1 MPa. This damage was only seen in areas adjacent to the application of the shockwave. Lithotripsy also involves thousands of these 100 MPa shockwaves in a session.[1][2]

None of the cited papers I've looked at claiming to show incapacitation from remote injuries appear to decouple hydrostatic shock (sound waves) from effects caused by the temporary or permanent cavitation, which are both dynamic effects (pushing material around). This should be simple enough to do, simply by using a lithotropter or other similar device to apply hydrostatic shock waves to the central nervous system of a suitable test subject. Since hydrostatic pressure is easily measured, and appears to be readily decoupled from other variables, it seems irresponsible to draw any conclusions from the existing data. If hydrostatic shock can be shown to be a significant wounding factor, then it should be simple enough to design bullets to maximize the level of hydrostatic shock; certainly there are designs intended to maximize temporal cavities (like the THV and Devel concave ogive bullets) and permanent cavities (like large meplat, flat nosed solids) so there is no reason there could not be a design to maximize hydrostatic shock. Bullet shape will certainly have an effect on hydrostatic shock; just listen to the sound waves generated by a diver entering the water in different ways. The energy and velocity will be the same for a given diver falling the same distance, but the sound levels between a clean, head-first dive and a belly flop will be very different (as will penetration and splash). Based on the diving analogy, I suspect that hydrostatic shock will be strongly coupled to the temporary cavity size. I also suspect, based on the use of lithotripsy to remove stones from areas very near the central nervous system, such as the salivary glands, that hydrostatic shock will be found to have little or no immediate impact on incapacitation.

One possibility that popped into mind when mentioning the optic fiber above is the soliton wave. These waves, in their fluid form, are unique not only in the fact that they suffer far reduced attenuation, but also because they result in a significant shift of mass; the discoverer originally called them a "wave of translation" because of this property. It seems that temporary cavity formation in any region containing large blood vessels, especially in the thorax, could create an unusually large soliton in the circulatory system. There are a number of papers that provide some tangential support for this, comparing normal blood flow to soliton waves, where the elasticity of the blood vessels allows the blood to travel in waves of translation, rather than pressure driven flow[3], and there are a number of other papers that provide the mathematical solutions for generating solitons in thin walled, elastic tubes. A soliton would also provide a pressure peak detectable with a transducer, but the soliton would travel far slower than the compression wave of hydrostatic shock wave, which (by definition) travels at the speed of sound in the medium.

Well, that's it. Anyone out there who might, say, have a research laboratory and the means do some testing is welcome to have a go at the problem. Unless one has an infinite supply of goats then it's probably best to first approach the issue of relative incapacitation effects of dynamic vs. static pressure waves, using non-ballistic means. That knowledge in hand, a set of pressure transducers embedded in a block of ballistic gelatin could be used to measure and differentiate between static and dynamic pressure waves, allowing a reproducible medium to be used for further testing. scot (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of the theoretical discussion of wave-propagated damage emphasizes momentum transfer while neglecting thermodynamic aspects of bullet impact. The foot-pound traditionally used to describe bullet energy can be translated to thermal calories, with three foot-pounds being approximately equal to one calorie. Calories can raise the temperature of tissue fluids and convert them to steam. The requirement for doing so is energy release focused on a small area so heat transfer away from that area will not be fast enough to prevent development of a temporary steam bubble. The released energy is mathematically represented as one-half bullet mass times bullet velocity squared; but, for the area of interest, the velocity translated to energy is the difference between the entrance velocity and the exit velocity. A penetrating bullet carries some of it's energy away as it leaves. The most effective thermodynamic energy transfer results from a high velocity bullet disintegrating into small particles stopping near the point of disintegration.

This type of bullet is likely to generate a high-pressure steam bubble which momentarily expands radially to approximate atmospheric pressure, and then condenses to leave the wound cavity characteristic of high-velocity expanding bullets. The phenomena is very similar to an explosion, with the difference that the gas generated as steam will rapidly re-condense into water following expansion rather than remaining as carbon dioxide like conventional explosives. Hydrostatic shock could be transmitted through blood vessels, perhaps in the form of a soliton wave as you suggest. Assuming fixed steam bubble pressure transients for similar energy release in similar tissues, a variable factor would be dissipation from fluid flow resistance between the steam bubble location and the vulnerable parts of the central nervous system. Central nervous system effects should be most evident from steam bubbles generated near large arteries and veins.

This appears to be a neglected interdisciplinary interpretation of observed results. I suggest editors review engineering publications on thermodynamics and fluid flow (momentum, heat and mass transfer) for reference citations.Thewellman (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Instantaneous condition of the heart is another variable for consideration with vascular transmission of bullet energy. Hydraulic pressure transients coinciding with systolic ventricular contraction would be additive to peak blood pressure, while transients arriving when the heart was diastolic might be dissipated by expanding the relaxed heart rather than transmitted to rupture capillaries in the brain.Thewellman (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the work of Suneson, but if the article writer is explaining it accurately, it's bad science. If you shoot a pig -even an anaesthetised pig- in the leg, well, you'll get a massive spike in intra-cranial pressure (which is what the researcher's transducers are measuring). But you'd get that same spike if you passed a suction catheter down the animals' throat- discomfort causes spikes in ICP. That's nothing new (and doesn't really justify shooting pigs). It doesn't in itself indicate the presence of a pressure-wave emanating from the axis of injury up to the brain; why didn't the researchers think of placing intra-abdominal and intra-thoracic transducers which would be able to demonstrate the transmission of a pressure-wave?

As for the resultant rise in ICP (intra-cranial pressure), you'd need a sustained- not fleeting- pressure of 20-30 mm Hg to disrupt cognitive function. And the effects would take too long to manifest themselves to alter the outcome of a firefight. The fact is, raised ICPs are only witnessed (in the context of smallarms) after direct head-trauma, not after thoracic or abdominal wounds. It's just a fact. Check with any reputable neurosurgeon who's treated gunshot victims. Similarly, if effects of hydrostatic shock can damage the brain from afar, how come anyone ever survives a penetrating head wound from a bullet? (Admittedly rare, but I've known a few). Doesn't the Kellie-Monroe principle apply? However, you don't need a neurosurgeon to tell you that being shot hurts- this is more than enough to explain any momentary pausing by a wounded man; it doesn't require pseudo-science and the sacrifice of pigs. And if- as proponents of 'hdrostatic shock' claim, these pressure-waves travel via major blood vessels (and apart from via cerebro-spinal fluid in the case of the spine being hit, there doesn't seem to be any other credible mechanism)- why aren't the lungs / heart damaged? No immediate trauma, no thrombo-embolytic events, no raised troponin-T, no disruption of cardiac pacing. Most significantly, there's no loss of blood-pressure autoregulation (and resultant neurogenic cardiac shock), although such a pressure-wave would presumably impinge on baro-receptors which are sensitive to, er, pressure. As for apnea in shot pigs- well, if I was shot, I might gasp or briefly hold my breath too.

The fact is, if hydrostatic pressure-waves occur during smallarms injury, they seem to have little clinical effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cappuchin (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that discussion on the Talk page should be confined to discussing improvements to the article. The last few posts seem more of a general discussion on the hydrostatic shock topic. To be sure, some interesting points are raised that are worthy of discussion. I propose moving the discussion to a more appropriate forum. This space should be used mainly for discussing article improvements. Since there is already a discussion on the topic at www.thehighroad.org I will answer the points that have been raised there. See: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4343280&posted=1#post4343280 Michael Courtney (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Above comment read as: "Too many people here think I am full of crap. Please come over to a forum filled with more similar basement-dwelling firearms know-it-alls who will shower you with insults until you stop bothering to post, and I win." This poster has apparently started this little pissing contest over what is at best a theory elsewhere, with the apparent misapprehension that so long as a smarty-looking guy in a lab coat has a test indicating something, it becomes fact. This is not, nor hopefully will it ever, be the way scientific research operates. The place to discuss the content, or more specifically, the validity of Wikipedia articles is Wikipedia. NOT a topical forum elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.205.234 (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that you can cite many references that meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources that disagree with the numerous references cited in the Hydrostatic Shock article. There are sufficient references to the peer-reviewed literature to support the article. Certainly, contrary views can be included in the article, provided that they meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. Scientific research operates based on published data. There is quite a bit of published data supporting remote pressure wave effects. To date, we have found no published data contradicting remote neural effects of ballistic pressure waves.Michael Courtney (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job avoiding the issue on that one. The point remains: 'please follow me and discuss this on another page' is not a good response to an argument here - it's tantamount to 'let's take it to the parking lot.' I am not saying that anything isn't properly sourced or doesn't belong or even that anything in article should be changed - just that debating the issue should be done here not on a page you already know is overrun with people who agree with your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.205.234 (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia talk page is for discussing article improvements, not for general discussion of the topic. My intent was to steer more general topic discussion to an alternate forum, so that the discussion here could focus on more specific suggestions for improvements to the article. If your point is that the hydrostatic shock article is somehow wrong or incomplete, you need to bring reliable sources to the discussion if you are suggesting that the existing article be modified to include information from additional sources. If your point is a general discussion to better understand the topic, then it is appropriate to suggest an alternate forum. All this is established Wikipedia policy.Michael Courtney (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

'Does the evidence cited actually show this' is a pretty legitimate 'article improvement' discussion. Removing potentially spurious claims that may or may not conform with basic logic is as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.205.234 (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

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)

FBI

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)

The article seems to be full of that kind of thing. 96.242.81.80 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tone and Impartiality

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)

Okay, I've noticed that THE contributor is Michael Courtney. Which means that this article desperately needs a skilled editor to meet encyclopedic standards. Wouldn't you agree? 62.253.112.209 (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been well over a decade since Fackler, MacPherson, and Patrick last published their contra-claims. Even as of 1996, there were many more scientific voices in the reliable sources supporting remote wounding effects. In the last 13 years, all the new data published in reliable sources has been supportive of remote wounding effects, and the body of scientific literature supporting remote wounding effects has grown considerably. The article gives proportional weight to the reliable sources: three or four authors and papers against the idea, lots of scientists and papers published providing supporting evidence. I don't think they are all mentioned in the current article, but I could list 30-40 scientific articles and 30-40 scientists on record in reliable sources giving support to remote effects of ballistic impacts.Michael Courtney (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Dr. Courtney is that he has repeatedly shown a willingness to bury the opposition in citation that ultimately lead nowhere, while being consistently unable to produce a single source that demonstrates what he wants it to after an actual analysis of the content (in once instance on M4Carbine.net claiming remote wounding effects to the brain based on a case study of bullet that passed through the targets skull). The result seems very credible to the casual observer but his conclusions are rejected by the vast majority of professional ballisticians and physicists note that the energy needed to cause such tears simply is not present. He also has been known to cite this wikipedia page (as noted entirely his own creation) as evidence of his claims. The FBI and almost all world militaries have been highly successful using Permanent Cavitation to determine which arms are most effective, where as rounds such as the Glaser Safety Slug (which should produce tremendous hydrostatic shock effects if they had any significance) have been rejected by absolutely everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.81.80 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WDMET data

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

Dr. Fackler also claimed that a study of rifle bullet wounds in Vietnam (Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team) found “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.” Dr. Fackler cited a personal communication with R. F. Bellamy. However, Bellamy’s published findings the following year estimated that 10% of fractures in the data set might be due to indirect injuries, and one specific case is described in detail (pp. 153–154). In addition, the published analysis documents five instances of abdominal wounding in cases where the bullet did not penetrate the abdominal cavity (pp. 149–152), a case of lung contusion resulting from a hit to the shoulder (pp. 146–149), and a case of indirect effects on the central nervous system (p. 155). Rather than contradict distant injuries, as Fackler claimed, the WDMET data from Vietnam actually provides supporting evidence.

References

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)

• Please tell me this is some kind of performance art about scientific illiteracy. Bellamy is very clear about the non-existence of strong evidence for stress waves as a wounding mechanism. His "openness" to the idea is blatantly twisted by the article into outright support. At every stage he points out that the evidence is weak. People can go read this is they want to. Finding things that haven't been properly explained but might what we might expect from something is not evidence in favor of it. As for Fackler's unfortunate choice of words I would not that Bellamy's ability to find only ten cases or so of things that *MIGHT* be evidence for hydrostatic shot in the entire Vietnam War is strong evidence that stress waves are the least reliable wounding mechanism possible.

To ignore this is terribly dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.81.80 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude on your discussions, but I have a question regarding this WDMET data collected in Vietnam during the USA occupation... was there not a convention which forbade the use of soft point/hollow point/flat point projectiles in war?(or any other projectile which imparts significant kinetic energy or momentum of the projectile to the target) Of the data collected, what portion was the result of injury from bullets encased in a full metal jacket, and as a full metal jacketed round has a tendency to do, pass through without imparting a significant amount of the projectiles energy to the target, and what effect has this on propogating a pressure wave in the target? If there is an effect of limiting the pressure wave by using FMJ, can this data be used to invalidate the proposed wounding mechanism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.126.62 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be The Hague_Conventions_(1899_and_1907), but the main parties of the war were not signatories to it. The standard South Vietnam-allied military round for most of the war was 5.56×45mm_NATO, and the standard North Vietnam-allied round was 7.62×39mm. Both are full metal jacket bullets. Davethehorrible (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Grenade in a swimming pool

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)

Yes and no. In the specific case of the swimming pool there are several different wound mechanisms so it is difficult to tell which one kills. At close range to a blast, a bubble of hot gasses form within microseconds, displacing water outwards. A hydraulic shock. This causes a pressurewave that will squash people in the water. After the bubble have finished expanding, the displacement shockwave turns into a soundwave, and this propagates outwards even though no water is moving. This is the hydrostatic shock. It can kill for quite a distance, and does so by shredding the lungs and bowels of the victim. That happens because when the wave passes tissue it will behave like water and so the energy is not released. But at any point of a water/gas interface, like in tha alveolas, the tissue around the gas pockets will compress violently and then be pressed out again after the wave has passed by the now high pressure gasses. So if one swimmer has his chest high in the water, and another is fully submerged, the former might be completely unharmed then the latter id killed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.164.222 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed cartridge comparison in first paragraph.

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)

Hydrostatic shock is a general term

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)

Ammo Manufacturers - Hydrostatic shock as a factor in selection of ammunition

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)

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)

Good. I was going to put a "caveat emptor" section there but prefer that it just be removed. Obviously if there are still serious questions about the existence of hydrostatic shock, its causes and effects - velocity, mass, and penetration to name just a few - any claim at having designed or engineered something that actually causes it is absurd. Even if it were well understood and bullets had been manufactured that could produce it, it isn't clear why that would be relevant to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranx0r0x (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Claim of NPOV issue

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)

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)

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)

There are plenty of sources already in the article -- you just twisted them, downplayed them, or misrepresented them in every way imaginable. The "company advertising" junk I removed was just one example of the serious issues plaguing this article. I know who you are, I know you have a close personal connection to this topic, and I know you wrote the entirety of this article without any outside input. Please see WP:COI. Editing with a conflict of interest is disruptive to Wikipedia. ROG5728 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Michael Courtney

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)

• Support.and.Defend (talk · contribs), the other major contributor to this article, appears to be an undeclared sockpuppet of Michael Courtney (talk · contribs). There also seem to be serious POV and COI issues with these accounts and their contributions to the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Misleading article title

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggest complete rewrite

"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)

Redirect changed

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)

This article is ...not good

This article assumes it is reasonable to distinguish between hydrostatic damage and other types of pressure-induced damage to animal tissue. IF there is a difference between "hydrostatic" and "hydrodynamic" and "hydraulic" shock, then that really needs to be explained up top. If there are well-accepted, well-defined terms for non-contact damage that a high velocity object does to animal tissues (and bone, if it's not a "tissue") then that also needs to be said up top. The article claims hydrostatic shock is "remote neurological damage" AND/OR "rapid effects". This is OBVIOUSLY not correct. Perhaps there are two uses of the term (in terms of weapon damage)? IDK, but the remote neurological damage includes damage which occurs over years while the "rapid" effects have no clear definition at all. Not good. Is "rapid" 15 minutes? 3 years? 3 milliseconds? I can give examples of "rapid" that apply to each of those, expecting a reader to know what the time-frame is here isn't reasonable. Also, claiming that bone damage (one example discussed) was caused by temporary cavitation not hydrostatic shock assumes that hydrostatic shock didn't cause the cavitation. It looks to me like the editors cut and pasted bits of papers/sources that use hydrostatic shock in different ways. But, I could be wrong. I also should mention that cavitation as used here is not defined. Cavitation can cover a large range of time-scales, from microseconds (and x-rays!) to years (in the corrosion of some metals), it can mean a (vapor) bubble or a liquid-filled volume (i.e.replacing lung tissue). Anyway, surely there IS some consensus that bullet cause non-contact damage. I have no opinion on the right way to categorize the various purported effects, but mashing a few together here isn't it.98.17.180.146 (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)