Re: Velocity of a falling bullet

"Fred Bloggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> 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.
>

It is sort of but with the absence of a medium...  This is a physics
group and we talk about shit that can't really happen all the time to
understand the underlying principles...  and we get bored....