did you actually read what I wrote (apart from the last line which somebody is kindly editing for me, thank you kindly, but please stop)
I said, when assessing safety, you have to assume that the paintball won't break, because that's the most damage that it will cause...
Yes there are other variables, how much deformation a solid ball will cause, but a solid ball will deform too. Take a look at high speed video footage of a baseball deforming when hit by a bat. Although a baseball appears to be solid, it will deform quite a bit. So a solid paintball will have some amount of deformation too.
The unknown variable is how much difference there is between a paintball that doesn't break, and a solid ball. If the size and weight are the same, and the ball doesn't break on impact then the amount of force on impact will be in theory, the same.
Paintballs that won't break do exist, we got a load of Zap two years ago after campaign cup, and this stuff would ricochet off trees. Dangerous yes, lethal, no. I got shot with it, and I'm still standing... so I know that even a solid paintball that won't break on target is still not capable of seriously hurting someone.
As for the tests in Scotland, they were done by loading a shot with a different density (therefore a different mass) to prove solid shots from paintball guns could be lethal.
There's a big difference between a .68 calibre shot of a rubber paintball, and a .68 calibre of a solid steel ball!
So
the variables are:
the weight of the ball... the solid ball is advertised as being the same weight as a standard paintball
the speed of the ball... both are being shot at 300 fps, and should be travelling at the same velocity
the amount of force absorbed by the ball... if a paintball is too hard and doesn't break, it should absorb a comparable amount of energy to a solid ball, and transfer a similar amount of weight to the target. If there is a massive difference in this factor, then the whole thing doesn't work, but for two objects to be the same weight and volume they must have similar structural characteristics.
Does a solid training ball pose more of a risk than a premium paintball? Of course
Does a solid training ball pose more of a risk than a badly stored and very hardened paintball? Probably not.
Do current safety standards account for players using improperly stored paint? I don't know, it hurts like hell, but I've still got all my body parts, so probably no.
Do players ever use improperly stored, hardened paint? You bet your ass they do, cause I've been shot with some seriously hard paint, and it hurts like hell!
I'm aware that you teach Physics...but that doesn't meant that you don't actually have to read what I've written. In fact as a teacher I'd expect that you pay more attention to the argument being presented. If I'm wrong, then I'll admit to it, but you have yet to actually address what I've written!
And whoever is editing my posts, please stop. You have the job of editing out inappropriate material, not changing my post for your own pleasure. Thank you.
