fossil said:
Actually, I think it's a good deal more complicated than even that. Yes, you can calculate (if you have enough data) the kinetic energy of whatever tool you choose, in whatever geometric configuration you want to assume, and have an accurate picture of the energy available in the system as the tool strikes the target. What happens next depends on many variables...hardness of the target, geometry of the striking head, angle of impact, substrate beneath the target...where does the energy go? Any energy that doesn't go directly into causing the target to split is "wasted" energy. Personally, I think the geometry of the striking head is a significant factor in putting the available energy to work in the most effective manner. But there are lots of other considerations, as well...as we've seen in this discussion. For example, some splitting conditions are just not conducive to maintaining the striking head geometry of relatively "fragile" tools. Rick
Rick, I think I remember reading you are an engineer, so I'm not trying to give a physics lesson. I'm just reducing the easily analyzable components in a way that may help explain what might be going on. Sure, in a real life situation there are many other variables, and what works for one guy won't necessarily work for another guy. At any rate, like burning itself, it's all interesting to dissect. In the end, it all ends up as ashes in the garden. ;-)
These discussions remind me of the pissing matches on gun forums, about "knock down power" and "stopping power", and arguments about momentum and velocity and kinetic energy, etc. The only one who's sure about it all is the animal that gets whacked by the bullet.