Mythbusters: bullet fired vs. bullet dropped video...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now, my hands are not electric solenoids, which is why I switched the objects and repeated several times, even though only 3 drops are recorded.
I used a couple of methods to insure that the two objects were being dropped simultaneously. One was to hold both the bolt & earplug together between the thumb and forefinger of one hand so that when the fingers come apart both drop at once. The second was to use a smooth plastic card with both objects sitting on the card. I would rapidly slide the card sideways out from under the objects so that they would fall at once. Using this method I actually had the earplug land on top of the bolt a couple of times.

You're getting pretty similar results in your test. Here's a frame from the first drop. The bolt is circled but the earplug hasn't fallen into the field of view of the camera yet.

attachment.php


I could see no detectable difference with the two bolt/chapstick drops which is more or less what I would expect.
 

Attachments

  • Bolt-no-earplug.jpg
    Bolt-no-earplug.jpg
    18.4 KB · Views: 85
The physics is really very simple.
I think what confuses some people is that when we fire a gun in the real world we never launch that bullet parallel to the ground.
Usually the bullet is rising when it leaves the barrel but this is due simply to the barrel pointing above horizontal. There is no "lift" from the bullet and gravity acts on it from the moment it leaves the barrel.

TargetShooting3.gif
[/URL][/IMG]
 
You're getting pretty similar results in your test. Here's a frame from the first drop. The bolt is circled but the earplug hasn't fallen into the field of view of the camera yet.

Yes it has. I told you the still frames were blurry, but it's there.

Bolt-yes-earplug_zpslxf22dyd.jpg

I can't capture frames as pictures on windows media player (or I don't know how if it's possible), but if one of you all can, you'll see the frame before the one John posted shows the bolt at the very top of the frame (no blur visible on the right), the one after shows both objects having already hit and bounced (the plug is still translucent, but easier to see as it passes in front of the white PVC tube at about a 45° angle).

ETA: Anyone can click the settings on the lower right of the video and reduce speed to .25. Makes it much easier to see.

I could see no detectable difference with the two bolt/chapstick drops which is more or less what I would expect.

Yet the density of the chapstick is much closer to the ear plug than the bolt. Doesn't add up, does it? The drag of each of these items will be pretty similar, as they're basically all cylinders.

W=weight (gr) SA=surface area (sq. in.) V=volume (cu. in.) D=density (lb/cu ft)

Ear plug

W: 8.3
SA: 3.42
V: .12
D: 15.3

Chapstick (yes, it's a tube I've been using, so you would not get the exact same weight and density figures with your own)

W: 111.9
SA: 12.19
V: .75
D: 33.4

Bolt

W: 926
SA: too difficult to accurately calculate for these purposes, but about 9 if we don't try to measure each thread
V: .47
D: 490

As we can see, the density of the chapstick is just over double that of the ear plug, while the density of the steel bolt is almost 15 times greater than the chapstick.

So, please, watch the clip again at slower speed. Here is a copy of the video at reduced speed at 1/8 speed (stretches 25 seconds out to 3:21). The first impact happens at 1:08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUuaLsL8bjU
 
Last edited:
As far as bullets creating lift, no.

Think of a QB throwing a football. The football isn't creating lift, and the QB doesn't throw the football directly at the receiver, the QB has to throw it at an angle into the air and gravity is dragging it back down.

Same thing with a gun. You think the barrel is pointed directly at the target, but it's actually pointing slightly up, so the gun is "throwing" the bullet to the target and gravity drags it back down. It's just that bullets travel much much faster than footballs, so their curve in flight is much flatter.
 
JohnKSa hit the physics pretty well in post #41. Acceleration is caused by an imbalance in forces, in the case of the bolt and ear plug, the two dominant forces are gravity and drag. In the atmosphere, the acceleration of neither the bolt, nor the earplug will remain 32.2 ft/s^2 after drag forces (proportional to the square of velocity for turbulent for) start to build.

The inverse square law says that the gravitational force on an object is related to its mass (and the mass of the earth). If you're just looking for the acceleration of that object in a vacuum, the mass term is cancelled out when you combine this equation with F=MA. If your looking at acceleration in the atmosphere you can't assume constant acceleration and you have to do a force analysis for each object that will be dependent on its drag and mass. The acceleration of the bolt and the ear plugs will be different, but you probably won't be able to see the difference by dropping them 7 feet be hand, since they won't be going that fast when they hit the ground, and drag force is proportional to the square of velocity. If you drop them from significantly higher you'll see a difference even though neither object hits is terminal velocity.
 
Last edited:
Yes it has. I told you the still frames were blurry, but it's there.
Ok, it does appear that the bolt has bounced at that point but it's not clear as to whether or not the earplug has too. So here's another frame capture slightly earlier than the last one showing the bolt as a streak but with no trace of the earplug.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • bolt-no-earplug2.jpg
    bolt-no-earplug2.jpg
    16.2 KB · Views: 64
Last edited:
Seriously, man, watch the 1/8 speed copy. It's pretty clear. The impact and beginning of bounce for both objects occurs between frames. The first image you posted is just before impact of either, and the one in your last post is one frame before that. None of the actual impacts of either object in any of the drops can be seen in a still frame. Would need probability of many more drops or a much higher speed camera to get that.

JohnKSa hit the physics pretty well in post #41. Acceleration is caused by an imbalance in forces, in the case of the bolt and ear plug, the two dominant forces are gravity and drag. In the atmosphere, the acceleration of neither the bolt, nor the earplug will remain 32.2 ft/s^2 after drag forces start to build.

The inverse square law says that the gravitational force on an object is related to its mass (and the mass of the earth). If you're just looking for the acceleration of that object in a vacuum, the mass term is cancelled out when you combine this equation with F=MA. If your looking at acceleration in the atmosphere you can't assume constant acceleration and you have to do a force analysis for each object that will be dependent on its drag and mass. The acceleration of the bolt and the ear plugs will be different, but you probably won't be able to see the difference by dropping them 7 feet be hand, since they won't be going that fast when they hit the ground, and drag force is proportional to the square of velocity. If you drop them from significantly higher you'll see a difference even though neither object hits is terminal velocity.

In the scope of human knowledge on physics, I have a very cursory understanding. Never took it in school (9th grade drop out), never researched it beyond what I needed to know. Nonetheless, I do understand that drag force is basically velocity^2/drag coefficient, accounting for air density. So, two objects with the same drag coefficient but of very different densities have very different terminal velocities. That is elementary. The more involved aspect of acceleration under the force of gravity encompasses that drag component; the denser object will overcome greater drag than the more buoyant one, but the drag (friction) becomes exponentially higher as the speed increases.

My contention is that, despite their different respective terminal velocities, the reduction in acceleration from maximum rate to 0 will occur over about the same amount of time. The more dense object will obviously be traveling at a higher speed when the drop in acceleration occurs, so will cover more distance during that time, but the drag forces will also be exponentially higher, so I don't believe the chronology of that change will be much different than for the less dense object. I do not have the math skills to calculate it, and I would certainly love it if someone here who did could take the time to demonstrate it in hard numbers. Even in the absence of that detailed knowledge, I believe that objects in free fall spend the extreme majority of their time between 0 and terminal velocity accelerating at about 32 ft/sec^2, that the reduction in acceleration rate happens in a very short time relative to the time it takes to achieve terminal velocity.

This is why I argue that two very different objects will accelerate at virtually the same rate when falling in earth atmosphere, so long as the distance covered is insufficient to reach or nearly reach terminal velocity, where the reduction in acceleration becomes a very steep curve.

Anyone who has watched my little clip (particularly the slow motion version I posted today) and paid close attention can see that the impact times are so close together that the camera's 45 ms frames missed the actual impacts of both objects all 3 times. This demonstrates that the acceleration rates are very, very close within that 6-1/2 foot drop. Now, if we stretch that distance enough that the ear plug has just reached it's terminal velocity when it hits, I'm certain the bolt would impact noticeably sooner, since it would still be accelerating. I do not, however, know what the required height would be.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, man, watch the 1/8 speed copy. It's pretty clear.
I did and it is. I can see at least one frame where the bolt is visible in the air in the frame before the earplug comes into the frame.
I believe that objects in free fall spend the extreme majority of their time between 0 and terminal velocity accelerating at about 32 ft/sec^2, that the reduction in acceleration rate happens in a very short time relative to the time it takes to achieve terminal velocity.
The acceleration varies with the drag and the drag force varies from zero to 1G over the timeframe between 0 velocity and terminal velocity. As you point out, the drag varies non-linearly, increasing with the square of the velocity which means that initially it has little effect but then as it increases it has a larger effect.

This web page has some plots showing the velocity of a falling object as it increases from zero to terminal velocity.
Speed_vs_time_for_objects_with_drag.png

So does this page.
speedcurve.gif

Just eyeballing the graphs, it looks like an object spends roughly a third of the time required to achieve terminal velocity accelerating to about 75% of terminal velocity, another third getting to 95% and the remaining third getting to 100% (or close enough to 100% that it doesn't really matter).

During the time that it takes to reach 3/4 of terminal velocity (about a third of the overall time spent achieving terminal velocity), the velocity increase is fairly linear. That means it's probably reasonable to assume that during that timeframe, drag isn't a major factor. The force of gravity is the main contributor during that timeframe.

For the remaining 2/3 of the time drag is definitely a significant contributor and the acceleration on the object will be significantly less than the force of gravity would induce.

Fun topic!
 
I did and it is. I can see at least one frame where the bolt is visible in the air in the frame before the earplug comes into the frame.

No, in the last still you captured, which I have looked at many times prior, we cannot see the streak of the plug. Is it there? Probably, since in the next frame they are at almost the same point above the ground, and the frame after that they are both bouncing. But I cannot see it, so I cannot point it out. The plug is just not easy to see until it slows down, being smaller and less reflective than the zinc coated bolt, which is hard enough to make out in many frames. If you'd like, I can re-do the video with a 6.5" foam ball (a little less dense than the plug, BTW) and a decent sized piece of a PMDC rotor I have that I cut the forward shaft from (slightly more dense than the bolt with it's copper windings). I did do this with those two things and had the same results, although I did not record it. Yes, I have lots of other objects or pieces of stock I could use on the heavy side, but most of them I don't really want to drop on the concrete.

The graph is pretty much what I expected it to look like.

That link gives a nice breakdown of how much of the terminal velocity is achieved in each equal time period. This one had 10 units of time, but 8 through 10 were all at 100% of terminal velocity. It does show us clearly that the extreme majority of velocity is achieved in the first 1/3 of the time it takes to reach maximum, that the last 5% of velocity is achieved much more slowly with the increased drag. This coincides with my observation objects not at or nearly at terminal velocity accelerate at very nearly the same rate, that we will really only begin to witness the object with a higher terminal velocity pulling ahead noticeably when the other object is close to it's terminal velocity.

First 63.2
Second 86.5
Third 95.0
Fourth 98.2
Fifth 99.3
Sixth 99.8
Seventh 99.9
Eighth 100.0

So, we can probably safely assume that the less dense objects I dropped are only in the first or second of 10 equal time units required to achieve their terminal velocity at the time of impact. The more dense bolt is likely still well inside the first time unit, given that it's density will provide a terminal velocity several times that of the others. But since my experiment did not provide enough drop distance for either to get within the last (10%, 15%, whatever minority) percentage, they were both still accelerating at nearly the same rate.
 
No, in the last still you captured, which I have looked at many times prior, we cannot see the streak of the plug. Is it there? Probably...
Ok, how about if I rephrase my last comment. "I can see at least one frame where the bolt is visible in the frame but where neither you nor I can detect the earplug in the frame."

You can assume you can't detect it because it's hard to see, I'll assume it's because it's not there. :D

Seriously, in several of the drops I did, the earplug actually landed on top of the bolt. That's pretty conclusive even if you don't want to accept as evidence the picture from your video where one is visible and the other isn't.
This coincides with my observation objects not at or nearly at terminal velocity accelerate at very nearly the same rate, that we will really only begin to witness the object with a higher terminal velocity pulling ahead noticeably when the other object is close to it's terminal velocity.
Objects in the first third of the time it takes to reach terminal velocity should be accelerating at pretty similar rates, however because the effect of drag on velocity is cumulative, the actual position of the two objects can diverge significantly even during the early stages of the fall.

It's important to keep in mind that just because they're doing roughly similar stuff during that first third of the time it takes each one to reach its respective terminal velocity, it doesn't mean that the timeframe encompassed by that "first third" is the same or even roughly similar for both objects nor does it mean that the velocities attained during that timeframe are the same, or even roughly similar.

Using the feather/bullet example, a feather might reach terminal velocity virtually instantly upon being released (the first third of the time being a third of instantly) while a falling bullet could take several seconds to reach terminal velocity. So saying that they fall at similar rates during the first third of the time it takes them to reach terminal velocity might be generally correct but it doesn't even remotely suggest that at any given time (other than the instant of release) they are traveling at similar velocities or will be at the same position.

The more similar the objects are and the shorter the drop is, the less the divergence will be.

But you're getting much closer to the truth.
 
Last edited:
Didn't read through all the posts, but bullet "lift" can happen.
IIRC it will be very slight and is due to instability.

Read: proper flight should mean no lift.
 
I thought the OP's question was if bullets 'fly' upward when shot??
(Aerodynamic Lift)

The answer is still no, they don't.
They start falling at the acceleration of gravity as soon as they leave the muzzle.


This is not what I meant...no bullets do not fly upwards obviously and they drop immediately as they leave the barrel....I was debating if some particularly aerodynamic bullets may generate a minimum amount of lift (more like "gliding" in a way, definitely not flying upward)

However, the Magnus effect in presence of crosswind act as a force (albeit small) on on a fired bullet as well (pushing up or down, depending on wind direction and rotation)
 
Bullets don't produce "lift". They're aerodynamically designed for stable spin at high RPM's and this means utter uniformity about a central axis of rotation. And the rotation itself would destroy any "lift" characteristics anyway.

Lift is produced by a difference in air pressure above and below a surface caused by the difference in air speed over the surface areas above and below the object. Since the object is rotating, there is no uniform surface presentation with which to produce consistent lift.

The bullet is, however, influenced by outside air pressures and this can be seen over long distances by anybody who has ever done any kind of target shooting on windy days. It is possible for the wind to deflect a bullet in any direction, including up. But "deflection" is not "lift".
 
why did you expect lift?

The physics is really very simple.
I think what confuses some people is that when we fire a gun in the real world we never launch that bullet parallel to the ground.
Usually the bullet is rising when it leaves the barrel but this is due simply to the barrel pointing above horizontal. There is no "lift" from the bullet and gravity acts on it from the moment it leaves the barrel.

Very good, Philuk44!

This is not what I meant...no bullets do not fly upwards obviously and they drop immediately as they leave the barrel....I was debating if some particularly aerodynamic bullets may generate a minimum amount of lift (more like "gliding" in a way, definitely not flying upward)

You are saying the same thing, but to a different degree. If enough lift was generated, it would fly upward. There is no lift generated, minimum or otherwise. The bullet is spinning, right, so any possible lift in one direction would be offset by lift in the opposite direction as the bullet rotated around its axis.

However, the nature of bullets is that they are balanced such that no more lift is generated in any direction over any other. For a bullet to generate lift from a rifled barrel, it would have an unstable spin and uncontrolled flight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top