Ballistic Equations

C

ckaven

Guest
Hello,

I am working on a bullet flight model for research purposes and need a little help on equation/method selection. I need to be able to determine position and velocity at all instances of time. It needs to be as accurate as possible. No, I am not working on another ballistics calculator (theres enough of those out there). I need to determine accurate bullet flight so that i can calculate an accurate acoustic pressure wave created along the bullets path. It will be done on a per bullet basis, so i will know BC, muzzle velocity, mass, etc of the projectile. If any of you have some advice or know someone that has created an accurate calculator that would be willing to help, please post. It will be much appreciated.

I have been searching for a week now and this seems to be the best place to find some answers.

Thanks for your time
 
thanks guys. i actually sent JBM an email yesterday and they replied shortly after i made this post. they have been a big help and its nice to know that they well known for their work
 
I think that Heisenberg showed that it's not possible to know both the position and velocity of something simultaneously, or more accurately the greater precision that the velocity or position is known the less precision the other can be known.

That concerned subatomic particles, but the same would apply to bullets and other projectiles. If the projectile's position at any given moment is known exactly it has to be effectively stopped so its velocity can't be determined. If the velocity is known with a great degree of accuracy its position can be known generally, but not very accurately I don't think.
 
AH HA! So that is why when I urinate outdoors I cannot miss my shoes: the Heisenberg uncertainpee principle. Tim
 
Last edited:
quoting Larry Elliot.....I think that Heisenberg showed that it's not possible to know both the position and velocity of something simultaneously, or more accurately the greater precision that the velocity or position is known the less precision the other can be known.

That concerned subatomic particles, but the same would apply to bullets and other projectiles. If the projectile's position at any given moment is known exactly it has to be effectively stopped so its velocity can't be determined. If the velocity is known with a great degree of accuracy its position can be known generally, but not very accurately I don't think

To say "the same would apply to bullets" is probably misleading at the least. You might just as well have said we can't determine position or velocity to any degree of accuracy at all. You might also have said we can't determine any truths at all. Applying the Heisenberg principle, or even mentioning it in relation to the practical ballistics we use to describe bullet flight is nonsensical.
 
Damon

Great web sight, all the math aside, Mc Coys book will prove to be interesting.

Ethan
 
Larry Elliott said:
I think that Heisenberg showed that it's not possible to know both the position and velocity of something simultaneously, or more accurately the greater precision that the velocity or position is known the less precision the other can be known.

That concerned subatomic particles, but the same would apply to bullets and other projectiles. If the projectile's position at any given moment is known exactly it has to be effectively stopped so its velocity can't be determined. If the velocity is known with a great degree of accuracy its position can be known generally, but not very accurately I don't think.
Click to expand...

larry

probobly a dumb question, but applying heisenberg in this instance or scale, isnt that like trying to define "pi" exactly?

Ethan
 
Larry Elliott said:
I think that Heisenberg showed that it's not possible to know both the position and velocity of something simultaneously, or more accurately the greater precision that the velocity or position is known the less precision the other can be known.

That concerned subatomic particles, but the same would apply to bullets and other projectiles. If the projectile's position at any given moment is known exactly it has to be effectively stopped so its velocity can't be determined. If the velocity is known with a great degree of accuracy its position can be known generally, but not very accurately I don't think.
Click to expand...

Heisenberg becomes important when the energy you use to "illuminate" the particle enough to determine it's position is enough to alter its energy, and therefore it's velocity. So if you can "see" it, you will have altered it's velocity. In the case of atomic sized particles particularly, interaction with photons causes no end of random changes.
 
I can not see how it would be possible to know the exact position of the bullet as it goes down range because of the changing wind over the coarse of the moving bullet. Unless you could fire it down an arching tube to follow the path of the bullet with a perfect vacuum inside. If that was possible I think that would be the end of our sport since we all would be shooting perfect "one hole" groups at all ranges.

gt40
 
If you've ever read the whole article "How Bullets Fly" on the web - you would see that it's been done (tracking bullet position in flight). Bullet position and attitude was tracked from muzzle to target using radar at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds. But tracking it, does not imply any means of controlling it - so "one hole groups" are still the responsibility of the shooter.
 
I don't see how ballistic prediction will help OP with further predictions of pressure wave position per time. The pressure wave would be bowed over the bullet nose at some unknown angles, constantly changing, during flight. Same would hold for other shockwaves generated at bearing and base.
This is some of what has to be tested with aerodynamics, rather than predicted. With that, you would have data needed to define only very limited parameters, under set conditions. With a change of humidity, MACH changes, but so does air density, and you'd have to start all over again.

It could be measured with RADAR, and many microphones along the path. But no ballistic software is designed to predict this(no reason to so far).
 
"How Bullets fly" Let me tell you something Aberdeen may use radar to track them, but if you watch through a spotting scope on a day when there are switches and let ups. You will see bullets do tricks that you would wonder how the hell your even hitting the target let alone one hole groups! Like I said before its all Ballistics Masturbation!

Joe Salt
 
Joe Salt said:
"How Bullets fly" Let me tell you something Aberdeen may use radar to track them, but if you watch through a spotting scope on a day when there are switches and let ups. You will see bullets do tricks that you would wonder how the hell your even hitting the target let alone one hole groups! Like I said before its all Ballistics Masturbation!

Joe Salt
Click to expand...

For the most part agree with joe, there have been alot of great minds who have PREDICTED most everything to do with high and low angle artillery/naval cannon and how it applys to small arms. Now measuring exterior ballistics and the efeccts of projectiles while in flight would be a the trick. If I was wanting to know what research and formula have been done so far (and Iam not nor do i have the background in math to understand it) but you can find any number of papers produced by the researchers at white sands or yuma, or go to the bibliography of vaughns book, and dig a few of these guys out. It has been my experience in other fields that researchers who spend a significant amount of time (usually years) love to chat up there work.

As a side note: I believe Mr. Tooley posted he had completed a test of 30 cal bullets at a doppler site. Ill bet he would have a few names of some gentlemen who might know a thing or two about this subject and how it relates to the original post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top