Non-scientific hobbyist entertainment with synthetic gel.

[JCN]

Disclaimers:
1. This is for entertainment purposes only.
2. This is for entertainment purposes only.
3. Did I mention this is for entertainment purposes only?
4. In case you missed it, it’s for entertainment purposes only.
5. Did you know I Dremeled my fingernail for fun?


Okay, that out of the way.

The best criticisms I’ve seen about the Clear Ballistics Gel is from the Police 1 series.

https://www.police1.com/police-produ...kEYB93TAd5o6J/

To me, there are a couple reasonable conclusions from that testing.
1. The density of the clear gel 10% is lower than organic gel 10%.
2. Lower density leads to underexpansion and then overpenetration compared to organic gel.
3. Calibration with BB at FBI velocities doesn’t seem to offer similar ability to correct.

But… in thinking about it…

What if there were a specific “sweet spot” of density that could be used for handgun type velocity testing. Wouldn’t necessarily hold at slower and faster velocities.

What if we calibrated around 1000 fps rather than 590 fps because of different shear properties at different velocities.

What if we calibrated to a known gold standard 9mm ballistic performance instead of a BB…

What would that look like?

Why does Clear Gel have to be 10% if it performs more faithfully at 14.8% to organic gel at the velocity ranges that matter for handguns….

What would the faithful percent be?

So my first pass feasibility testing would be to take something like this as an initial standard:



I own a P938 like he tested and a whole bunch of 147 +P HST.

I own 10% and 20% synthetic blocks and a turkey oven…

I’m thinking to start with approximately 15% gel and seeing what kind of expansion and penetration I get compared to what he got in organic. And then adjust the formula from there.

[GearFondler]

I'd be more comfortable with this if it was for entertainment purposes only.

[JCN]

Chunks of 10 and 20% gel mixed together.

Will stir when liquid.

Some of the recovered bullets from the 20% block.





So at least the 20% isn’t too solid. FMJs don’t crush.

Hollow points expand the way they should.

Wadcutters… look like wadcutters.

If the denser prepped synthetic gel fails to expand HST to the level that organic did, then we know there’s no chance of a comparison.

[JCN]

FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY

The main criticism of the gel (it overpenetrates and underexpands projectiles) doesn’t seem to me a property of the gel per se but more a criticism of the commercially available preparation.

Organic gelatin molecules are long and squiggly. How they interact with each other matters a significant amount and this property is probably not exact with the synthetic gelatin.

So I think the Clear Ballistics company made a logistical error in trying to make a 10% block of the synthetic (by weight) rather than focusing on the actual properties. Maybe they did it intentionally? Who knows.

All we know at this point is:

1. The commercially produced blocks are too thin compared to organic gel.
2. The molecular properties of the synthetic gel are not the same as organic gel.

#2 should not be a surprise as I doubt they actually made a product with synthetic protein, probably electing for some sort of plastic polymer.

Doubly not a surprise is because of the different melting temperatures of organic and synthetic gelatin.

So I don’t think that synthetic gel will ever be identical in performance to organic gel across the entire spectrum of ballistics.

The question I had in my head is different, though.

The main question is: could you adjust the synthetic gel concentration and instead of calibrating with a BB at 590 fps, calibrate with the gold standard handgun cartridge of something like a 9mm HST.

If you got the gel dense enough to prevent overpenetration, would expansion be similar to organic gel for that smaller window of ballistics?

So that you could (potentially) make a 13-15% synthetic block that behaves similarly to a 10% organic block in the 900-1100 fps range.

What might happen with this testing that would suggest synthetic blocks are just unsuitable regardless?

If I made a 13-15% block that performed similarly to 10% organic when bare… but that still had a wide performance delta with 4LD testing, that would suggest that the molecular properties were just too different… SEPARATE FROM THE DENSITY concerns.

But it seems interesting and entertaining enough for me to test it out.

Because if someone says “synthetic gel isn’t appropriate” (because it’s not dense enough)… that’s something that can be altered in a turkey oven.

That’s different than “synthetic gel isn’t appropriate” (because the shear characteristics are just fundamentally too different).

That last statement is what I’m looking to clarify.

It’s also why I’m trying to calibrate with an expanding projectile as I feel that has the best chance of parsing out the real issue with the synthetic gel.







I let the pieces melt at 260 degrees overnight and give it a good mixing this morning.




If it cools in time, I might be able to get a prelim baseline later today. I’m just heating a little more to get the mixing bubbles out.

[Tokarev]

Here's some additional info on synthetic gel that may be useful to you.

https://brassfetcher.com/Synthetic%2...20Gelatin.html

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[JCN]

Here's some additional info on synthetic gel that may be useful to you.

https://brassfetcher.com/Synthetic%2...20Gelatin.html

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Awesome! That jives with what my ballpark estimates were.

From the article they measured the densities:

Clear Ballistics 10% synthetic gelatin had a density measurement of 790 kg/m³ while 10% porcine gelatin has a density of 1034 kg/m³. Based on density alone, it is conceivable that differences in terminal performance may be noticed when shooting Clear Ballistics 10% synthetic gelatin and 10% nominal porcine gelatin.


And modeled a ~0.8 correction factor.

So my baseline thoughts of adding 20% synthetic gel to a 10% block to get a 13-15% concentration should put the density of the synthetic closer to the organic.

Then we can start to tease out if it’s just a density issue or truly limited by the molecule properties.




It would be one thing if the only thing sold was a 10% block. Then we would be stuck trying to come up with a correction factor.

But they sell 20% blocks that aren’t much more money. And feasibly, you could petition the company to sell a 15% block if that wound up being closer in density and performance to 10% organic.

[JCN]

Let’s go!

[the Schwartz]

Awesome! That jives with what my ballpark estimates were.

From the article they measured the densities:

Clear Ballistics 10% synthetic gelatin had a density measurement of 790 kg/m³ while 10% porcine gelatin has a density of 1034 kg/m³. Based on density alone, it is conceivable that differences in terminal performance may be noticed when shooting Clear Ballistics 10% synthetic gelatin and 10% nominal porcine gelatin.

And modeled a ~0.8 correction factor.

So my baseline thoughts of adding 20% synthetic gel to a 10% block to get a 13-15% concentration should put the density of the synthetic closer to the organic.

Then we can start to tease out if it’s just a density issue or truly limited by the molecule properties.


It would be one thing if the only thing sold was a 10% block. Then we would be stuck trying to come up with a correction factor.

But they sell 20% blocks that aren’t much more money. And feasibly, you could petition the company to sell a 15% block if that wound up being closer in density and performance to 10% organic.

The CBG product is composed of a triblock copolymer that has been plasticized by a paraffinic processing oil (ParaLux 700 according to a few leaked invoices that made their way around the 'net several years ago). In other words, the CBG product is reformulated gel candle. The primary reason that the CBG product can never reproduce the pressure response to impact that 10% ordnance gelatin or water can is because it is not possible to formulate it to a density that is higher than its chief constituent components. An in order to correctly represent a bullet's expansion and penetration depth, the simulant must have the same density as what it is simulating.

According to the Bernoulli equation, P_DYNAMIC = ½ρV², besides impact velocity, density is the only material property that effects the dynamic pressure that occurs at impact. So, if the density of whatever test medium is being used does not match that of human soft tissues, it cannot accurately reproduce the pressure of the two proven tissue simulants.

The triblock copolymers used in the CBG product have a density range of 0.89 to 0.92 g/cm³.
The paraffinic processing oil used in the CBG product have a density range of 0.85 to 0.87 g/cm³.

In comparison—

10% ordnance gelatin has a density range of 1.029 to 1.039 g/cm³.
Water has a density of 0.999 g/cm³.
Soft tissue has a density range that varies from 1.050 g/cm³ for human muscle, to 0.985 g/cm³ for adipose tissue, with a composite density of the human body 1.043 g/cm³. (Mast, D. et al, 2000)

So, no matter what ratio of triblock copolymer and paraffinic processing oil is used, any possible set of blending proportions that could be used to make the CBG product can never exceed the density of its densest component which would be 0.92 g/cm³.

To say otherwise is the equivalent of claiming that 1 x 1 = 1.2 It doesn't.

Unfortunately, there will never be a simple linear ''conversion'' of results obtained in the CBG product to their equivalent in 10% ordnance gelatin, noted below by Lucien C. Haag for your edification—

Lucien C. Haag (AFTE Journal, Spring 2020 52;2) who addresses the issue further in the following excerpt from that article—

[JCN]

@the Schwartz appreciate the time you took for that.

But the part you’re missing is that there IS a denser (they call it 20%) formulation.

And that formulation decidedly does NOT overpenetrate compared to 10% organic.

So a fundamental assumption you’re making is wrong. Because they sell it, I own it, and have sawed through it and it is way tougher than their 10% product.

It is quite possible that the 20% is a completely different formula. They do seem to melt together seamlessly though.

[camel]

Synthetic material is still playing with synthetic materials unless those materials equate to organic materials.
Just saying. Look forward to the fun aspect.

Edited to add: I look forward to this.