Assaulted by a paint ball gun...

Discussion in 'The Bike Cafe' started by TrekDedicated, Mar 27, 2006.

  1. cucamelsmd15

    cucamelsmd15 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    What happened steve? Always ballistic trajectory? Base first isnt ballistic trajectory steve.

    Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop:rolleyes:
     


  2. cucamelsmd15

    cucamelsmd15 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    The bullet doesnt fall point first steve.

    Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop.:rolleyes:
     
  3. cucamelsmd15

    cucamelsmd15 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny how the US Army has different figures, actually closer to, um, real?

    Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop:rolleyes:
     
  4. stevebaby

    stevebaby New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    2
    Caca,you have really lost it now.Are you into the "product" again?
    Mwahahahaha..."pharmacist".
    Most people just call them "drug-dealers" :D :D :D :D
    Don't you think that's a little pretentious? :D :D :D
     
  5. stevebaby

    stevebaby New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    2
    And those figures would be...?
    Where's your evidence?
    :D :D :D
     
  6. cucamelsmd15

    cucamelsmd15 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    No steve. Most people call me, Doctor. You need to get back on the sauce steve:rolleyes:

    What is it exactly you do steve? Whats your job, if you have one:rolleyes:
     
  7. cucamelsmd15

    cucamelsmd15 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    There it is in writing steve

     
  8. stevebaby

    stevebaby New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    2
    Is this incoherent garbled gibberish supposed to be making some kind of point?
    What are you on...drink or drugs?

    :D :D :D
     
  9. cucamelsmd15

    cucamelsmd15 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    You reversed your point, I called you on it. Flip flop, eh?:rolleyes:
     
  10. stevebaby

    stevebaby New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    2
    And these are your own words...yes?
    :D :D :D
     
  11. cucamelsmd15

    cucamelsmd15 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    The values are higher now steve, we simply know more. Please just shut up now, youre looking more stupid by the second:rolleyes:
     
  12. stevebaby

    stevebaby New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ummm...no.
    You
    are on drugs!! :D :D
     
  13. cucamelsmd15

    cucamelsmd15 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    No steve, Im not on drugs. You need drugs, mainly anti-psychotics, but a few others I could think of too.
     
  14. stevebaby

    stevebaby New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    2
    The "values"? Higher than what?
    This is just gibberish.Can't you even write a sentence?
    So what you are struggling to write is...the most recent figures are more accurate? This being the case...you agree with me?
    Or are you trying to say that the figure from the 1920's is more accurate...in which case you are contradicting yourself...again.
    Do you have even a glimmer of what you're trying to say or is it the drugs talking?
    And you claim to be doing a PHD? If PHD's are bestowed on idiots whose idea of an argument in support of an assertion is..."You're stupid" and "Shut up" then it can only be concluded that you are attending Hamburger U and getting your qualifications from a roll on the toilet wall.
    Just have a look at the absolute drivel you have posted.
    :D :D :D
     
  15. SkinnyRob

    SkinnyRob New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since stevebaby is obviously unwilling to accept the facts here, as others have, here is a little physics lesson, for everyone:

    For this example we will be using a .30 caliber round. Most .30 rounds are 150g weight, but some 180g. We will use the 150g for simplicity.

    This is a warning for some of you (particularly stevebaby, who enjoys denying that the laws of physics actually exist), some of this might get a little over your head.

    First, we have the equation F=ma, where Force is equal to mass times acceleration. While this would be sufficient for calculating the speed of a bullet in a vacuum, the Earth is not a vacuum. We need to account for the force of gravity acting on the bullet as it continues upwards, but we will get to that in a minute. Its also important to note that acceleration is proportional to velocity.

    The rising bullet will be subject to two forces on its ascent, the same two forces that affect its descent: wind and gravity. Wind resistance is fairly minimal on the ascent when comparing supersonic and subsonic speeds. In fact, at supersonic speeds, the resistance will be almost linear to the velocity.

    This doesnt mean that the bullet stays supersonic for long. Gravity begins to take its affect on the bullet, and it begins to slow. Once the bullet falls from supersonic speeds, wind resistance can then best be described as being proportional to the square of velocity, rather than linear.

    Now, as already discussed, the bullet wont fall point first, or base first. It simply does not have enough spin imparted by the rifleings in the barrel. As we said earlier, wind resistance is higher at subsonic speeds, and that also lends its hand to stopping the bullet from turning as well. So, now that the bullet is no longer spinning, it falls into a tumbling motion. This is where drag and calculations go out the window. Its fairly easy, and its been done to calculate the drag on a bullet as its spinning. There simply isnt much interest in calculating the drag on a bullet thats tumbling, because it isnt accurate, and there are too many variables introduced. But, just for sake of argument, we will assume the terminal velocity of the falling bullet will be around 250fps.

    Now, back to the old F=ma equation. Since we now know the velocity, and the acceleration and the mass, we can determine the force. Incidentially, F for force can be substituted for the term (W-D), where W is weight, and D is drag. We know that the acceleration is due to gravity, and is 9.8m/s^2. We know the mass is 150gr. 150gr in normal terms is roughly 10 grams. The conversion factor is somewhere around 65 for converting grains->grams.

    So, based upon the F=ma, or (W-D)=ma, as you see it (it can be arranged to solve for any variable, for those of you not familiar with basic algebra), we can determine, and its already been stated before here that the falling energy of the 150gr projectile will be around 35ft/lbs of force. The relationship of force vs. size of the projectile will tend to be linear to some extent. That means that, a smaller bullet will require less force to be pushed through a medium. Incidentally, a larger bullet will require more force to be pushed through a medium.

    Since the subject of force and size is now at hand, you can throw out the window anything to do with caliber, because the bullet isnt falling nose or base first, its tumbling. Now that the bullet is on its side, the amount of force (and also velocity required to maintain the same amount of energy) goes up exponentially. Its easily compared to pulling a large blunt object through a body of water as opposed to an object with a more dynamic shape that allows for passage of the water over the body. More force is required to move the object with more drag.

    So, now we know that the falling bullet, assuming that its taking a more aerodynamic shape, will have about 35 ft/lbs of energy, and probably less due to tumbling. So, lets see what the US Navy has to say about this
    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/dam_crit/dam_crit.htm

    The Navy seems inclined to think that 100 Joules of energy is enough to do the trick. So, what is Joules in Ft/lbs? Funny you should ask, its actually around 75 ft/lbs, which is roughly 40 more than our .30 caliber bullet. Also of interest is the fact that the Navy calculated that figure for a .22 caliber bullet. Smaller bullet=less force, as already explained by the F=ma equation. Also, many ballistics experts today, including myself agree that it would take 100 ft/lbs of energy for a small bullet, and 150 ft/lbs or more for a larger bullet to produce a wound with sufficient penetration as to be disabling or lethal. In Joules, for comparison with the Navy's ballistics tests, thats roughly 130 Joules for a smaller caliber bullet, or 200 Joules or more for a larger caliber bullet.

    Now, if youre with me so far, good. If youre stevebaby, you respond, and post more nonsense, or links that dont support your argument, and then ramble on endlessly about things that you dont know about, despite the fact that its right here, in writing, and cold, hard physics. :D :D :D
     
  16. cucamelsmd15

    cucamelsmd15 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, youre saying that it takes more force than a falling bullet to kill someone?

    Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop steve:rolleyes:

    Youre doing a good job of diverting the argument, because you know youre wrong, and youve been proven wrong, which is why youre backtracking, and changing your words now:rolleyes: Man, you sound just like George W steve, seriously:rolleyes:

    Get back on the sauce steve and back on the drugs, youre more of an idiot without it. Im almost done with my PhD by the way, and Ive already finished a Pharm D. PhD's are given to people who work for them, Im sure thats something you dont know anything about, right? Im sorry, and your credentials were?:rolleyes:

    Oh wait, you dont have any.:rolleyes:
     
  17. stevebaby

    stevebaby New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    2
    By what process of "logic" did you manage to draw
    that conclusion?
    Certainly not from anything that I posted.
     
  18. SBSpartan

    SBSpartan New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    If there were in fact logic in your posts I would quote said logic.
     
  19. cucamelsmd15

    cucamelsmd15 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    You specifically said the most recent figures are more accurate, and those figures state that (as Rob as said) most experts lean towards 100+ ft/lbs of energy.

    Youre so confused steve, you cant figure out if youre coming or going:rolleyes:

    Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop:rolleyes:
     
  20. stevebaby

    stevebaby New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    2
    Your entire "argument" is predicated on a bullet fired exactly vertically.
    As I have repeatedly pointed out,this is not possible.The best result that could be achieved is an approximation only.
    You still can't show how to fire a bullet exactly vertically,can you?
    Why not?
    While you're at it,show how it can be done with a hand-held weapon.
    caca says that bullets fired straight up will fall base first,btw.
    :D :D :D
     
Loading...
Loading...