Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Killed by a Falling Bullet? - Myth busters.



I can't believe Paul has been a lurker.

This reminds me of a very famous poet, while discussing his trade, was asked by an audience member if poets were "really" interested in these details. He answered heartily, "We glory in it." Well, we love to nit pick too, -- and I find it often reveals points I hadn't thought of.

bc, who doesn't like the idea of admonishing anyone (except for admonishing admonishers), and occasionally nit picks.

p.s. I think Jack means a mortar not a howitzer. My skimming from Google suggests generally max. elevation is 45 deg. for howitzers.

p.p.s. Out there is a v. high speed video tracking the fall" of a "bullet". Perhaps I'll look for it.

Jack Uretsky wrote:

I suggest that the net supervisor admonish this use of intemperate language.

The original post omitted a crucial step and seemed to encourage a lethal and dangerous practice. A bullet fired upward at an engle that is not precisely vertical has horizontal as well as vertical velocity when it returns to earth - that's the principal of the howitzer, which is to lob artillery shells over obstacles. Assuming that a bullet dropped from the maximum height of a vertically fired bullet is not lethal in all circumstance, what is the minimum deviation from exactly vertical that would make the bullet lethal in most circumstances.

Also, my ill-mannered friend seems to be reading more into the original post that was originally said. There were was no quantification in the original post of the concept of "falling".
Regards,
Jack


On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Paul.A.Giusti wrote:


I never enter into any of these threads but this 1 i have 2 make comment on!

The original post was highly interesting and the experiments carried out
were quite "cool" in order to get an answer.

My point is, who actually cares that bullets are falling when they strike
their target in relation to smart assed reply. The original post was
interesting, yet the point that bullets fall slightly even when fired
normally at a target is mundane!

I have no idea the magnitude a bullet falls when fired normally at a target,
however, i would bet that it is such a minute number that any normal human
being would not care in the slightest at!

yes, it may fall, but its not interesting so what was the point of the post?
You actually say it as if you are serious about it which worries me!

Anyway, in relation to the original post that aroused interest, there is an
episode of CSI, can't remember if it's las vegas or miami, where the vicitm
is killed in that way, and they work out that it was a stray bullet from far
away that mistakenly killed the person.

Perhaps when someone's killed at point blank range, they work out how much
the bullet had fallen between the time it leaves the gun and when it hits
the person!!! lol

Paul



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Uretsky" <jlu@hep.anl.gov>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Killed by a Falling Bullet? - Myth busters.



But all bullets are falling when they strike their target.
Regards,
Jack

--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l