Bullets falling back to earth
 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:11:52 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

OK, all you bottom posters. Justify the post I am replying to!


"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...


Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT, the renowned "JTMcC"
wrote:

That sure doesn't sound right to me. A bullet or any other object fired
into
the air, let's say straight up to keep it simple, will slow until it
finally
stops and begins to fall back to earth. I would think the effect of
gravity
and wind resistance would determine the maximun velocity of the falling
bullet (object), not the velocity at which it was fired upward with.
The
same speed would be realized as if you had simply dropped the bullet
(object) at the same altitude from a hot air balloon. Feel free to
correct
me if I'm wrong.

Yes, provided it reaches terminal velocity from that height.
There was a recent, long and annoying thread on this in
sci.electronics.design which I considered x-posting here.. one of the
more amusing physics thought experiments was if you fired a bullet
from the imaginary surface of a stationary planet with no atmosphere
directly vertically (at less muzzle than escape velocity- no problem
with that on Earth), it would return at exactly the same speed as it
left the muzzle, in the reverse direction. Ouch.

In real conditions, if a relatively heavy bullet isn't tumbling I
could see it coming back fast enough to potentially hurt someone
(imagine, say, a 180 MPH pointy metal object falling on your skull).
But people don't always fire them straight up, which could be worse
again. There was apparently a law (called Shannon's Law) passed in
Phoenix AZ due to a youth killed from a celebratory gun firing..
common in the Hispanic community.

Gunner probably has all the facts at his fingertips on this...

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the
reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

You don't measure bullet speed in miles per hour. But you
are pretty close to the maximum terminal velocity. 1mph =
1.467 fps so 180 mph = 264 fps. The army found that the
maximum terminal velocity of rifle bullets was about 300
mph. For comparison think of a baseball at 80 mph. If the
baseball weighs about 2.5 times the bullet, then the energy
would be the same as a bullet at 300 fps. Of course a
baseball weight many time the average rifle bullet. Or, for
another comparison, many air pistols max at about 300 fps.
So let's not get carried away with the possible damage of a
falling bullet.

I guess then, it couldn't do a lot of damage. Maybe only kill you.

STeve


************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I was frightened by the idea of a conspiracy that was
causing it all.
But then I was terrified that maybe there was no plan,
really. Is this unpleasant mess all a mistake?

Bullets falling back to earth
 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:56:30 GMT, Ted Edwards
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

Mike Graham IIRC,

????? Maybe he met his matc....woman.
************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I was frightened by the idea of a conspiracy that was
causing it all.
But then I was terrified that maybe there was no plan,
really. Is this unpleasant mess all a mistake?

Bullets falling back to earth
 

In article , James Waldby wrote:
Mike wrote:

Can the New Jersey shoot straight up?

How about a 16inch round from USS New jerseyGG

I think it can launch cruise missiles at a high angle,
and some of the smallest guns might shoot straight up,
but the 16-inch guns have a maximum elevation of 45º.

there is one interesting photo online (long load time):

http://katie-and-rob.org/album/20031...n2561.jpg.html

it's not real obvious, but the wall around the corner from the open hatch
has been stove in by a pressure wave from the 16" guns. i can hear
it now, "WHO closed that vent?!. i DON'T CARE how loud it is, sailor!"

--Loren


I have a photo of a cutaway diagram of the New Jersey's
16-inch guns, that at one point says, "Guns can be inclined
individually from -5 degrees to 45 degrees, at a rate of
12-degrees per second." There are 3 turrets with 3 guns
each, 1700 tons rotating weight per turret, and basic
rounds are either 2700-pound AP or 1900-pound HC. Minimum
crew size is 77 men per turret and fire rate is two rounds
per minute per gun. The maximum range of an HC round
is "41622 yards when fired with the normal propelling
charge of 660 pounds, with a muzzle velocity of 2690 feet
per second".
-jiw

Bullets falling back to earth
 

In article ks8Eb.417652$ao4.1353640@attbi_s51, Carl West wrote:
Doug Smith wrote:

In article ,
says...
Can the New Jersey shoot straight up?


Well, if the gun's stabilization was turned off and the gun was aimed to
as high an angle as possible and the ship was wallowing in a heavy,
beam-on, sea and the guy on the trigger was really good then, maybe.

But then, down below in the shop, the lathe would NOT be level! [The
Horror.....]

Firing a 16" at that much roll?
Wouldn't that present a serious danger of getting said lathe wet? Along with everything else?

as in capsize? maybe they could fire into the water at the same
time? couldn't be any worse than the Iowa disaster. my brother
served on an AKA with a 5" mount above the fantail. these mounts
are simply bolted to the deck (like an afterthought), and were
universally hated by the happless souls (mostly machinist mates)
working in the shops below. this was the loudest noise he has
any memory of, incredible, shattered lite bulbs, some items like
oil cans actually flew off the bench. i imagine this predated
general use of hearing protectors. --Loren

Bullets falling back to earth
 

Gary Coffman wrote:

normal bullet path is a parabola

Only if you assume there is no atmosphere.

Fitch

Bullets falling back to earth
 

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:11:52 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote something
......and in reply I say!:

OK, all you bottom posters. Justify the post I am replying to!
-snip-

If the id^H^Hpeople took the time to snip, the point would be moot.

I mean, how hard is it to glean the info and snip to the point?
It takes, what, 5 seconds, max?
Feh!


================================================== ========
Save the + http://www.diversify.com
Endangered SKEETS! + Web Application Programming
================================================== ========

Bullets falling back to earth
 

SteveB wrote:

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...


Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT, the renowned "JTMcC"
wrote:

That sure doesn't sound right to me. A bullet or any other object fired
into
the air, let's say straight up to keep it simple, will slow until it
finally
stops and begins to fall back to earth. I would think the effect of
gravity
and wind resistance would determine the maximun velocity of the falling
bullet (object), not the velocity at which it was fired upward with.
The
same speed would be realized as if you had simply dropped the bullet
(object) at the same altitude from a hot air balloon. Feel free to
correct
me if I'm wrong.

Yes, provided it reaches terminal velocity from that height.
There was a recent, long and annoying thread on this in
sci.electronics.design which I considered x-posting here.. one of the
more amusing physics thought experiments was if you fired a bullet
from the imaginary surface of a stationary planet with no atmosphere
directly vertically (at less muzzle than escape velocity- no problem
with that on Earth), it would return at exactly the same speed as it
left the muzzle, in the reverse direction. Ouch.

In real conditions, if a relatively heavy bullet isn't tumbling I
could see it coming back fast enough to potentially hurt someone
(imagine, say, a 180 MPH pointy metal object falling on your skull).
But people don't always fire them straight up, which could be worse
again. There was apparently a law (called Shannon's Law) passed in
Phoenix AZ due to a youth killed from a celebratory gun firing..
common in the Hispanic community.

Gunner probably has all the facts at his fingertips on this...

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the
reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

You don't measure bullet speed in miles per hour. But you
are pretty close to the maximum terminal velocity. 1mph =
1.467 fps so 180 mph = 264 fps. The army found that the
maximum terminal velocity of rifle bullets was about 300
mph. For comparison think of a baseball at 80 mph. If the
baseball weighs about 2.5 times the bullet, then the energy
would be the same as a bullet at 300 fps. Of course a
baseball weight many time the average rifle bullet. Or, for
another comparison, many air pistols max at about 300 fps.
So let's not get carried away with the possible damage of a
falling bullet.

I guess then, it couldn't do a lot of damage. Maybe only kill you.

STeve

I suggest you read Gunner's discourse. Course we could
argue about how many angels can dance on the head of pin,
but just to keep it in context we could argue about how
damaged they would be if they fell off. Or, on a more
practical subject, we could discuss the number of people
killed by logs falling off logging trucks on the road and
how you should hold your breath every time you meet or pass
one of those trucks. Yeah, a falling bullet could kill you
and people do die from logs falling off a logging truck on a
highway, but how many die? Watch out for those 16 inchers
from naval guns because even if they fall at only 1/2 fps,
they'll still crush your head. Bet you worry about all
those particles passing thru you at some large fraction of
the speed of light. They can kill you too.

Bullets falling back to earth
 

Why? Can't you justify your post?

Old Nick wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:11:52 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote something
......and in reply I say!:

OK, all you bottom posters. Justify the post I am replying to!


"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...


Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT, the renowned "JTMcC"
wrote:

That sure doesn't sound right to me. A bullet or any other object fired
into
the air, let's say straight up to keep it simple, will slow until it
finally
stops and begins to fall back to earth. I would think the effect of
gravity
and wind resistance would determine the maximun velocity of the falling
bullet (object), not the velocity at which it was fired upward with.
The
same speed would be realized as if you had simply dropped the bullet
(object) at the same altitude from a hot air balloon. Feel free to
correct
me if I'm wrong.

Yes, provided it reaches terminal velocity from that height.
There was a recent, long and annoying thread on this in
sci.electronics.design which I considered x-posting here.. one of the
more amusing physics thought experiments was if you fired a bullet
from the imaginary surface of a stationary planet with no atmosphere
directly vertically (at less muzzle than escape velocity- no problem
with that on Earth), it would return at exactly the same speed as it
left the muzzle, in the reverse direction. Ouch.

In real conditions, if a relatively heavy bullet isn't tumbling I
could see it coming back fast enough to potentially hurt someone
(imagine, say, a 180 MPH pointy metal object falling on your skull).
But people don't always fire them straight up, which could be worse
again. There was apparently a law (called Shannon's Law) passed in
Phoenix AZ due to a youth killed from a celebratory gun firing..
common in the Hispanic community.

Gunner probably has all the facts at his fingertips on this...

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the
reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

You don't measure bullet speed in miles per hour. But you
are pretty close to the maximum terminal velocity. 1mph =
1.467 fps so 180 mph = 264 fps. The army found that the
maximum terminal velocity of rifle bullets was about 300
mph. For comparison think of a baseball at 80 mph. If the
baseball weighs about 2.5 times the bullet, then the energy
would be the same as a bullet at 300 fps. Of course a
baseball weight many time the average rifle bullet. Or, for
another comparison, many air pistols max at about 300 fps.
So let's not get carried away with the possible damage of a
falling bullet.

I guess then, it couldn't do a lot of damage. Maybe only kill you.

STeve


************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I was frightened by the idea of a conspiracy that was
causing it all.
But then I was terrified that maybe there was no plan,
really. Is this unpleasant mess all a mistake?

Bullets falling back to earth
 

You got that right.

Whatever "that" is.

Steve


"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...
Why? Can't you justify your post?

Old Nick wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:11:52 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote something
......and in reply I say!:

OK, all you bottom posters. Justify the post I am replying to!


"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...


Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT, the renowned "JTMcC"
wrote:

That sure doesn't sound right to me. A bullet or any other object
fired
into
the air, let's say straight up to keep it simple, will slow until
it
finally
stops and begins to fall back to earth. I would think the effect
of
gravity
and wind resistance would determine the maximun velocity of the
falling
bullet (object), not the velocity at which it was fired upward
with.
The
same speed would be realized as if you had simply dropped the
bullet
(object) at the same altitude from a hot air balloon. Feel free to
correct
me if I'm wrong.

Yes, provided it reaches terminal velocity from that height.
There was a recent, long and annoying thread on this in
sci.electronics.design which I considered x-posting here.. one of
the
more amusing physics thought experiments was if you fired a bullet
from the imaginary surface of a stationary planet with no
atmosphere
directly vertically (at less muzzle than escape velocity- no
problem
with that on Earth), it would return at exactly the same speed as
it
left the muzzle, in the reverse direction. Ouch.

In real conditions, if a relatively heavy bullet isn't tumbling I
could see it coming back fast enough to potentially hurt someone
(imagine, say, a 180 MPH pointy metal object falling on your
skull).
But people don't always fire them straight up, which could be worse
again. There was apparently a law (called Shannon's Law) passed in
Phoenix AZ due to a youth killed from a celebratory gun firing..
common in the Hispanic community.

Gunner probably has all the facts at his fingertips on this...

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the
reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

You don't measure bullet speed in miles per hour. But you
are pretty close to the maximum terminal velocity. 1mph =
1.467 fps so 180 mph = 264 fps. The army found that the
maximum terminal velocity of rifle bullets was about 300
mph. For comparison think of a baseball at 80 mph. If the
baseball weighs about 2.5 times the bullet, then the energy
would be the same as a bullet at 300 fps. Of course a
baseball weight many time the average rifle bullet. Or, for
another comparison, many air pistols max at about 300 fps.
So let's not get carried away with the possible damage of a
falling bullet.

I guess then, it couldn't do a lot of damage. Maybe only kill you.

STeve


************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I was frightened by the idea of a conspiracy that was
causing it all.
But then I was terrified that maybe there was no plan,
really. Is this unpleasant mess all a mistake?

Bullets falling back to earth
 

In article ,
Old Nick wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:11:52 -0800, "SteveB"
wrote something
......and in reply I say!:

OK, all you bottom posters. Justify the post I am replying to!

*You* justify your quoting the whole thing, too.


"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...

[ ... lots of lines snipped ... ]

I guess then, it couldn't do a lot of damage. Maybe only kill you.

Really -- top posting is worse than bottom posting in my mind --
because it makes it easier for people to totally forget about what is
there (and still has to take up room on thousands of news servers around
the world, and to be downloaded in its entirity to all who want to read
that one line of new text.

I believe in neither top posting nor bottom posting, but rather
interleaved posting (as in this example), with my replies to various
parts immediately following those parts, and all excess text not needed
to maintain context trimmed.

*Some* newsreaders and news servers will refuse to post an
article with more quoted text than new text. I believe that is a good
start, as it forces one to trim excess text -- or to really think about
it and determine a workaround, if they really feel that all that quoted
text is necessary. (Yes, workarounds exist, but a carefully thought-out
and trimmed article should normally not need them.)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Pennies thrown from Empire State Building was Bullets falling back to earth
 

"Kurt Lochner" wrote

Why do you think the military doesn't drop buckets full of golf balls
out of B-52's instead of having guys on the ground with M16s? A falling
golf ball won't even go through a bed sheet let alone a steel covered
wood roof.

I was once a green marshall at a PGA golf tournament at Le Triomphe, in
southern Louisiana. It was a short par three, and all but three of the 88
golfers landed on the green with their tee shot. The balls would loft high,
and come down on the green with backspin. It was beatiful.

I was sitting there, and one of the three that went off the green came down
and hit me on top of the thigh. The golfer yelled FORE right before it hit
me. This ball was probably at the most 100 feet high when it began its
downward trajectory. I felt like I had been hit with a baseball bat. I had
a purple and yellow target shaped bruise on the top of my thigh for weeks.

I have no doubt that if the ball had hit me in the top of the head, it would
have done some serious damage. Maybe even gone through my skull.

As for your theory about a falling golf ball, why don't you go out and stand
next to a ten story building and have a buddy drop some golf balls down on
you. If you are so sure, you don't have a thing to worry about. After all,
just how much harm can a falling golf ball do?

I also notice that a lot of the carts have fiberglass roofs instead of
canvas. I wonder why that is ..............

Steve

Bullets falling back to earth
 

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:08:49 GMT, Ted Edwards wrote:
Gary Coffman wrote:

(normal bullet
path is a parabola).

Not in air.

True, The path is asymmetric due to air resistance. The key point I
was trying to make is that the path isn't a straight line, so it is not
lined up with the spin axis except at the muzzle.

Gary