Re: Velocity of a falling bullet

Jim Roberts wrote:
> "Fred Bloggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > The problem is at least 75% of the way to an exact analytical solution
> > when you know the muzzle velocity and the approximate drag coefficient
> > of this big fat 0.45 cal bullet:-) This is a short range projectile
> > designed for maximal flesh cavitation and knockdown power out to 50m
> > range-invented sometime around 1911 time frame for dealing with certain
> > lunatic elements in the Pacific:-)
> > http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/23-35/FM23-_2.htm
>
> Thanks. That's interesting. :)
>
> But we were considering a bullet fired in vacuum. I know this is not
> practical, but I was replying in the spirit of the post and trying to keep
> it simple.
>
>
> > -all the elementary physics assumptions are useless, petty, childish,
>
> idiotic, and just > plain wrong.
>
> How can you say that? If you don't understand elementary physics, how can
> you possibly solve a more complex scenario which takes into account the
> conversion of CE into light, heat, sound, kinetic energy and also drag force
> that the bullet experiences as it rises through the atmosphere and returns
> back to the surface?
>
> Cheers,
> Jim

I thought the thread was about the terminal velocity of the bullet when 
it returns to ground.