ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2017
The influence of the counterfort while ballistic testing using gelatine blocks.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ballistic gelatine-what we see and what we get.International journal of legal medicine · 2020Article
- Interpol review of forensic firearm examination 2016-2019.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2020Review
- Distortion of the temporary cavity and its influence on staining in firearm barrels.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In wound ballistic research, gelatine blocks of various dimensions are used depending on the simulated anatomical region. When relatively small blocks are used as substitute for a head, problems with regard to the expansion of the gelatine block could arise. The study was conducted to analyse the influence of the material the gelatine block is placed upon. Thirty-six shots were performed on 12 cm gelatine cubes doped with thin foil bags containing acrylic paint. Eighteen blocks each were placed on a rigid table or on a synthetic sponge of 5 cm height. Deforming bullets with different kinetic energies were fired from distance and recorded by a high-speed video camera. Subsequently, the gelatine cubes were cut into 1 cm thick slices which were scanned using a flatbed scanner. Cracks in the gelatine were analysed by measuring the longest crack, Fackler's wound profile and the polygon (perimeter and area) outlining the ends of the cracks. The energy dissipated ranged from 153 to 707 J. For moderate energy transfer, no significant influence of the sustaining material was discerned. With increasing dissipated energy, the sponge was compressed correspondingly, and the cracks were longer than in gelatine blocks which had been placed on a table. High-speed video revealed a loss of symmetry and a flattened inferior margin of the temporary cavity with energies superior to approx. Two hundred Joules when the blocks were placed on a rigid platform. However, 12 cm gelatine cubes showed material limits by a non-linear response when more than 400 J were dissipated for both rigid and elastic sustainment. In conclusion, the smaller the gelatine blocks and the greater the energy transfers, the more important it is to take into account the counterfort of the sustaining material.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28616691What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.