Can a Bow Launch an Arrow at Supersonic Speeds?

  • Thread starter kroni
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Supersonic
In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of building a bow that can launch arrows at supersonic speeds. The participants consider various factors such as the materials needed, the amount of energy required, and the potential challenges in creating such a bow. Some suggest using a crossbow or a rail gun, while others propose using materials like carbon fiber, steel, or piano wire. The conversation also explores the idea of using pneumatics to launch the arrows. Overall, the participants agree that while it may be difficult, it is not impossible to build a bow that can shoot arrows at supersonic speeds.
  • #1
kroni
80
10
Hello,

I am asking if from your point of view, is it possible to build a bow that can lunch arrow to a supersonic speed (speed superior to 350 m/s) ? I make some calculus, estimating cinetic energy needed but, is it possible to build a bow where this energy can be obtained ? In which material ?

PS : The bow have a classic size.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't think anything in physics rules it out. It's more of an engineering problem, which might be unsolvable with current technology.
 
  • #3
A quick back-of-a-napkin calculation I just did seems to indicate that the archer would need to pull the equivalent of a 100kg weight, the weight of a full-sized adult. That's probably not feasible.
(assumptions: 20 grams arrow weight, 1m draw distance)
 
  • #4
Perhaps a crossbow could get enough energy into your arrow. The arrow could be made extra light to make life a bit easier than rumborak's calculation suggests. Maybe ear protectors could be necessary to deal with the shock wave?
 
  • #5
sophiecentaur said:
Perhaps a crossbow could get enough energy into your arrow. The arrow could be made extra light to make life a bit easier than rumborak's calculation suggests. Maybe ear protectors could be necessary to deal with the shock wave?

There would be no shock wave or sonic boom observed by the archer. He/she is already behind the projectile.
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd and davenn
  • #6
sophiecentaur said:
Perhaps a crossbow could get enough energy into your arrow. The arrow could be made extra light to make life a bit easier than rumborak's calculation suggests. Maybe ear protectors could be necessary to deal with the shock wave?

The arrow would have to be a special material too probably, as it would have to withstand the acceleration without snapping.
 
  • #7
Like a lead ball? In a brass casing? Maybe propelled by gunpowder?
 
  • Like
Likes Pineapplejuice, Masquerade178 and billy_joule
  • #8
If you could find the materials to do this safely, a crossbow could theoretically do the job. The problem is finding a string that can withstand the forces, a very low mass bolt (that's what a crossbow shoots) strong enough not to break from the acceleration, and the limbs capable of delivering the force without shattering. Believe me, if such a crossbow were possible, it would have been invented by now. I've seen high end crossbows capable of up to 130 meters/second, but not much more.

This is actually not a new problem. It is an exercise in material science more than anything else. As Vanadium 50 pointed out, this is why guns were invented.
 
  • Like
Likes Rippetherocker
  • #9
This is an interesting challenge. In the realm of nonexplosives, only a bullwhip seems to be doing this--no exotic materials required.
 
  • #10
What about a (electric) rail gun that shoots arrows?
 
  • #11
boneh3ad said:
There would be no shock wave or sonic boom observed by the archer. He/she is already behind the projectile.
You could be right but the string would be at full speed as it passes within a few cm of your ear.
 
  • #12
sophiecentaur said:
You could be right but the string would be at full speed as it passes within a few cm of your ear.
Actually, the string wouldn't reach sonic speeds until it was well past your face (assuming you were endowed with the super-human strength to actually draw such a thing).

That said, even if this were a cross-bow, I wouldn't dream of firing something like this without ear protection.

And of course, the comic side of this is that as you reduce the air pressure, the speed of sound decreases. So to fire your supersonic arrow, first develop a bow that could shoot at 300 meters per second, and then take it to the summit of Mt. Everest...
 
  • #13
Thanks for all your answer.

I am planning to build a crossbow. I hesitate between carbon fiber + epoxy resin and steel. I will make some computation to estimate the optimal form of the limbs.
I think that a good solution for the string is to use a piano wire.
I estimate that the piano wire will explode at the end of the propulsion step, when the arrow left it because limbs stop.
So it's a one shoot string but i can use a thinner one so the speed is higher.

What do you thing about this idea ?
 
  • #14
kroni said:
Thanks for all your answer.

I am planning to build a crossbow. I hesitate between carbon fiber + epoxy resin and steel. I will make some computation to estimate the optimal form of the limbs.
I think that a good solution for the string is to use a piano wire.
I estimate that the piano wire will explode at the end of the propulsion step, when the arrow left it because limbs stop.
So it's a one shoot string but i can use a thinner one so the speed is higher.

What do you thing about this idea ?

Even if this works, you should expect everything to self destruct, especially the limbs.

You might also want to spend time watching slow motion video of what happens to the limbs and string of a compound bow. It is a complex motion. Consider using extremely eccentric cams with the limbs, mounted on very heavy duty bearings. I would also use steel for the limbs because a carbon fiber system will probably shatter, where steel may not.

In another post
stedwards said:
This is an interesting challenge. In the realm of nonexplosives, only a bullwhip seems to be doing this--no exotic materials required.

Allow me to add another non-explosive device that can break the sound barrier: Aircraft propellers. If the governor of an aircraft is not set properly, the engine may turn the propeller faster (typically 2800 RPM or more). This not only increases stress on the propeller significantly, it also doesn't yield any additional thrust. The reason is that the tips are breaking sonic speed. You won't notice much from inside the aircraft, but from the ground you'll hear a very loud, rasping roar as the plane of the propeller passes by.

Yet another possibility: Use pneumatics. See You could use the bow string on a very large piston that then launches the arrow...
 
  • #15
JakeBrodskyPE said:
Allow me to add another non-explosive device that can break the sound barrier: Aircraft propellers. If the governor of an aircraft is not set properly...
Or the aircraft designer decides so...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_XF-84H
 
  • #16
kroni said:
I estimate that the piano wire will explode at the end of the propulsion step, when the arrow left it because limbs stop.

Be aware that the end of a snapped steel wire lashes around unpredictably and can do an amazing amount of damage... Slice an eyeball in two... snip off an earlobe... If you're going to experiment beyond what off-the-shelf technology offers, invest in a setup that allows to you to trigger your awesome toy infernal device superbow from a few meters away.

And treat the cocking process with at least as much respect (which is to say, a lot) as you would the compressed coil springs in a MacPherson strut.
 
  • Like
Likes JakeBrodskyPE
  • #17
JakeBrodskyPE said:
And of course, the comic side of this is that as you reduce the air pressure, the speed of sound decreases. So to fire your supersonic arrow, first develop a bow that could shoot at 300 meters per second, and then take it to the summit of Mt. Everest...

This is a common misconception - the speed of sound in air is actually almost entirely independent of pressure. It basically only depends on the temperature of the air - speed of sound scales as the square root of the temperature. Yes, speed of sound decreases with altitude, but this is because the temperature decreases with altitude, not because the density or pressure does.
 
  • #18
Clearly i am really concient of the dangerosity of such bow, wire and limbs. I will build a simple system to trigger the device without problem.

Thanks a lot for all your remark ! I will post picture if i have time to build it.
 
  • #19
cjl said:
This is a common misconception - the speed of sound in air is actually almost entirely independent of pressure. It basically only depends on the temperature of the air - speed of sound scales as the square root of the temperature. Yes, speed of sound decreases with altitude, but this is because the temperature decreases with altitude, not because the density or pressure does.

It is popular among ultrasonic ranging instrument vendors to use just temperature to estimate the speed of sound. As you say, temperature is the most sigificant effect. HOWEVER: The speed of sound is actually dependent upon air density. Density is a function of both pressure and temperature. In most applications, you tend not to see significant variations in barometric pressure, though the temperature can and does change significantly. In this hypothetical case, BOTH are significant.

By the way, although I am joking about the Everest quip, I did take the time to look up the speed of sound in a standard atmosphere at 30,000 feet.
 
  • #20
JakeBrodskyPE said:
The speed of sound is actually dependent upon air density.
Can you show us how? The only relevant equation I know is for the speed of sound in an ideal gas, and there's no density nor pressure factor in there since they conveniently cancel out:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe3.html
How much of a correction is needed for a non-ideal gas? Is it really at all significant?
 
  • #21
JakeBrodskyPE said:
It is popular among ultrasonic ranging instrument vendors to use just temperature to estimate the speed of sound. As you say, temperature is the most sigificant effect. HOWEVER: The speed of sound is actually dependent upon air density. Density is a function of both pressure and temperature. In most applications, you tend not to see significant variations in barometric pressure, though the temperature can and does change significantly. In this hypothetical case, BOTH are significant.

By the way, although I am joking about the Everest quip, I did take the time to look up the speed of sound in a standard atmosphere at 30,000 feet.

Yes, depends on density but also on the bulk modulus or some other measure of the gas' elasticity.
For ideal gas the bulk modulus is proportional with pressure. And so is density. The pressure cancels out from the speed of sound.

Here is an interesting graph showing the dependence on pressure for real air.
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/SpeedofSound.html
For dry air seems to be a slope of about 0.1m/s per atmosphere.
As the pressure changes in the atmospheric pressure are less than 1 atm, the ideal gas model is pretty good.
For humid air though the things look quite different.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
JakeBrodskyPE said:
It is popular among ultrasonic ranging instrument vendors to use just temperature to estimate the speed of sound. As you say, temperature is the most sigificant effect. HOWEVER: The speed of sound is actually dependent upon air density. Density is a function of both pressure and temperature. In most applications, you tend not to see significant variations in barometric pressure, though the temperature can and does change significantly. In this hypothetical case, BOTH are significant.

By the way, although I am joking about the Everest quip, I did take the time to look up the speed of sound in a standard atmosphere at 30,000 feet.

Sorry, but in the great majority of cases, density variation does not have a significant effect on sound speed in air. This includes the range from normal, sea-level conditions all the way up to the 80,000+ foot altitudes at which the SR-71 flew. There are special cases (dense gas dynamics, for example, at very high pressures) where the density can matter independent of temperature, but in the range where air behaves fairly close to an ideal gas, the speed of sound is density-independent.

This arises from the momentum equation - the complete derivation can be found here: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sound.htm
 
  • #23
nasu said:
Yes, depends on density but also on the bulk modulus or some other measure of the gas' elasticity.
For ideal gas the bulk modulus is proportional with pressure. And so is density. The pressure cancels out from the speed of sound.

Here is an interesting graph showing the dependence on pressure for real air.
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/SpeedofSound.html
For dry air seems to be a slope of about 0.1m/s per atmosphere.
As the pressure changes in the atmospheric pressure are less than 1 atm, the ideal gas model is pretty good.
For humid air though the things look quite different.

Pay attention to the scales though - for dry air, you're looking at variances of a couple tenths of a meter per second out of 340, so less than 0.1% error by assuming an ideal gas. Even for humid air though, it's only ~2m/s, which is still less than 1% error compared to the ideal gas model. Unless you need better than 1% accuracy for some reason, you really don't need to care about the sound speed variation with humidity or pressure for normal atmospheric conditions.
 
  • #24
Oh, I meant that it goes the other way, when I said that it "looks quite different".
It is a small difference in both cases. I did not mean to imply that you need to care about it.:)
 
  • #25
cjl said:
Sorry, but in the great majority of cases, density variation does not have a significant effect on sound speed in air. This includes the range from normal, sea-level conditions all the way up to the 80,000+ foot altitudes at which the SR-71 flew. There are special cases (dense gas dynamics, for example, at very high pressures) where the density can matter independent of temperature, but in the range where air behaves fairly close to an ideal gas, the speed of sound is density-independent.

This arises from the momentum equation - the complete derivation can be found here: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sound.htm

Apples and oranges. The derivation assumes that despite the pressure and temperature changes, the number of moles of gas remains constant. But that's not the case here.

Look up a table of standard atmosphere pressures and temperatures.

Look at the ratio of temperature to pressure at sea level and at 30,000 ft MSL (or about 9500 Meters MSL --I won't quibble much). They are different. This is because there isn't as much mass per unit volume at high altitude. The air at higher altitude IS less dense. How can it not be?

The point of this thought exercise was to change the environment so that the speed of sound would be slower. I think you must realize that at the top of Mount Everest, the atmosphere must be less dense than it is at sea level.
 
  • #26
There was no argument about the change in air density with height.
It's just that the effect of density alone on the speed of sound is negligible.

If you don't like or understand the "theoretical" arguments, just look at the data.
If you measure the speed of sound at the same temperature, the effect of changes in pressure (or density) is minor. In this paper*, the speed of sound at about 0.5 atm was found to be 343.70 m/s and at 1 atm 343.43 m/s. The measurements were done at the same temperature. At 0.2 atm they found 343.80 m/s.

*R. L. ABBEY AND G. E. BARLOW, AUSTRALIAN J. SCI. RESEARCH A1, 175–189 (1948)
(reference and data quoted in "Handbook of the speed of sound in real gases", vol 3. by Allan Zuckerwar)
 
  • #27
JakeBrodskyPE said:
Apples and oranges. The derivation assumes that despite the pressure and temperature changes, the number of moles of gas remains constant. But that's not the case here.

Look up a table of standard atmosphere pressures and temperatures.

Look at the ratio of temperature to pressure at sea level and at 30,000 ft MSL (or about 9500 Meters MSL --I won't quibble much). They are different. This is because there isn't as much mass per unit volume at high altitude. The air at higher altitude IS less dense. How can it not be?

The point of this thought exercise was to change the environment so that the speed of sound would be slower. I think you must realize that at the top of Mount Everest, the atmosphere must be less dense than it is at sea level.

Of course the atmosphere is less dense at the top of Everest, but the effect of density on sound speed is negligible (and completely independent of the amount of gas present - sound speed is the same in a small enclosed container as it is in a large open space, so long as the conditions are the same).

Oh, and your last statement is a bit of a non-sequitur. If the point of the exercise is to change the environment so the speed of sound would be slower, drop the temperature. The fact that the atmosphere is less dense at the top of Everest is completely irrelevant to whether the sound speed is slower. I think you'll agree that the temperature tends to be much lower at the top of Everest than it typically is at sea level though, so the sound speed up there is definitely lower.
 
  • #28
Not possible... You would need a bow with spring constant 13,766 times the mass of the arrow considering there is no loss of kinetic energy
 
  • #29
Not sensible. A spring constant is not measured in units of mass.
 
  • #30
Hum ! I think the speed of sound in the air vary with density only at very low pressure. It's clear that empty space has no speed of sound, so there is a gap where the macro behaviour of matter disapear and micro effect like thermal effect are important.
 
  • #31
kroni said:
Hum ! I think the speed of sound in the air vary with density only at very low pressure. It's clear that empty space has no speed of sound, so there is a gap where the macro behaviour of matter disapear and micro effect like thermal effect are important.

At extremely low pressure, sound waves will just tend to dissipate, but the sound speed is pretty much the same. At high pressure, the sound speed can vary a bit though (you have to get up to a pretty high pressure for this to matter though).
 
  • #32
kroni said:
Hum ! I think the speed of sound in the air vary with density only at very low pressure. It's clear that empty space has no speed of sound, so there is a gap where the macro behaviour of matter disapear and micro effect like thermal effect are important.
The transmission / matching loss gets very bad at low densities - because there may not be enough molecules to carry sufficient KE from place to place- but the wave speed will eventually depend upon the speed of the molecules i.e. how fast the movement of the source can reach the receiver. All that is not relevant to sound transmission in our (lower) atmosphere where there are plenty of molecules to deal with normal sound power densities. A shock wave, however, will be formed when an object is moving significantly faster than the average molecular speed and gives large numbers a kick in the forward direction because they can't get out of the way in time due to their thermal motion.
 
  • #33
I read the thread and just couldn't resist.

They already do make devices that can propel small objects at supersonic speeds and are widely available already. They're called firearms. No theory necessary, just a background check and a thousand bucks.
 
  • #34
XZ923 said:
I read the thread and just couldn't resist.

They already do make devices that can propel small objects at supersonic speeds and are widely available already. They're called firearms. No theory necessary, just a background check and a thousand bucks.
True but they are not 'hand powered'. Air guns would be a potential solution but their energy output is limited by regulations to 12ft lbs - not for practical reasons, I think. If it were allowed, I'm sure someone would make a pumped supersonic version.
 
  • #35
sophiecentaur said:
True but they are not 'hand powered'. Air guns would be a potential solution but their energy output is limited by regulations to 12ft lbs - not for practical reasons, I think. If it were allowed, I'm sure someone would make a pumped supersonic version.

It's fairly difficult to get an air gun above ~1000ft/s though simply due to the speed of the air molecules themselves. No matter how much pressure you put in, the air can only expand at a certain rate down the barrel. You could get around this by either heating the air, or by using a lighter gas (like helium), but that's getting fairly complicated for an air gun.
 
<h2>1. Can a bow launch an arrow at supersonic speeds?</h2><p>Yes, it is possible for a bow to launch an arrow at supersonic speeds. However, it requires a specialized bow and arrow design, as well as a skilled archer.</p><h2>2. How fast can a bow launch an arrow?</h2><p>The speed at which a bow can launch an arrow varies depending on the type of bow and arrow used, as well as the strength and skill of the archer. Some modern compound bows can reach speeds of over 350 feet per second.</p><h2>3. What is needed to achieve supersonic arrow speeds?</h2><p>To achieve supersonic arrow speeds, a bow must have a high draw weight and a short draw length. The arrow must also be lightweight and have a streamlined design. Additionally, the archer must have proper technique and strength to draw the bow to its maximum potential.</p><h2>4. Are there any risks involved with launching arrows at supersonic speeds?</h2><p>Yes, there are risks involved with launching arrows at supersonic speeds. The high velocity of the arrow can cause it to break apart or lose accuracy. It is important for the archer to have proper training and safety precautions in place.</p><h2>5. Can supersonic arrows be used for hunting?</h2><p>While it is possible for a bow to launch an arrow at supersonic speeds, it is not recommended for hunting. The high velocity of the arrow can cause it to pass through the target without causing enough damage to take down an animal humanely. It is important to use arrows with appropriate speed and weight for hunting purposes.</p>

1. Can a bow launch an arrow at supersonic speeds?

Yes, it is possible for a bow to launch an arrow at supersonic speeds. However, it requires a specialized bow and arrow design, as well as a skilled archer.

2. How fast can a bow launch an arrow?

The speed at which a bow can launch an arrow varies depending on the type of bow and arrow used, as well as the strength and skill of the archer. Some modern compound bows can reach speeds of over 350 feet per second.

3. What is needed to achieve supersonic arrow speeds?

To achieve supersonic arrow speeds, a bow must have a high draw weight and a short draw length. The arrow must also be lightweight and have a streamlined design. Additionally, the archer must have proper technique and strength to draw the bow to its maximum potential.

4. Are there any risks involved with launching arrows at supersonic speeds?

Yes, there are risks involved with launching arrows at supersonic speeds. The high velocity of the arrow can cause it to break apart or lose accuracy. It is important for the archer to have proper training and safety precautions in place.

5. Can supersonic arrows be used for hunting?

While it is possible for a bow to launch an arrow at supersonic speeds, it is not recommended for hunting. The high velocity of the arrow can cause it to pass through the target without causing enough damage to take down an animal humanely. It is important to use arrows with appropriate speed and weight for hunting purposes.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • General Engineering
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
8K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
5K
Back
Top