At 1:56 PM -0500 10/29/08, Bill Brush wrote: > >I guess I don't consider this a "ballistics" question, so I fail to >see how whether or not they're experts on ballistics is relevant.
Bullets going through materials is a ballistics question with a LOT of materials science issues thrown in for good measure. >They were testing weapons within the constraints of the myth and >testing parameters that were reasonable. I've seen this implied >disdain of them (the Mythbusters) on a few occasions and I have to say >I don't "get" it. They're not experts, they don't purport themselves >to be experts, but they take questions that have non-obvious answers, >and test them in a scientific and entertaining manner. The whole >point of the show is to entertain while testing things based on the >scientific method. The trick is that I can take ONE load of ammunition or even three or four of NATO spec .223/5.56x45mm and fire it into a block of ballistic gelatin and get a clean bullet yaw and tumble. I can take another NATO spec .223 load and fire into the same batch of ballistic gelatin and have the bullet yaw and come apart in a near explosive fashion. The point is, that their tests, are supposed to be the final word and many people take them as such and when it comes to certain things they're not. I've had a guy who builds radar systems which represent Soviet or other "red force" radar systems from parts and 'other' data for _purposeful_ US military testing. He's looked at some of their shows and disagreed with their methods. He does this as someone who innately understands the fundamentals of RF propagation, wave guides, high power systems and electronics. I'll trust his wisdom on certain subjects a LOT more than I will the two guys in Mythbusters. Fundamentally, some of their tests are utter balderdash. >It's on the DISCOVERY channel, and unlike a lot of >programming they actually work at discovering answers. If science >class in school was half as interesting we'd have a lot more kids >interested in hard science. > I'm not saying it's not interesting, I'm saying that JUST because the two guys on the Discovery Channel say it's so, doesn't mean it's always so. >It would be interesting to see if a gun/bullet/charge combination >could be found that would penetrate water reliably. Anyone have a >pond and a sheet of plywood to test on? Yeah, in short go with a bullet with denser or more solid Jacket and lead core construction. Or go with a bullet with a different sectional density (same thing) AND different ballistic coefficient. The ogive is going to be in a different place and depending on the way the bullet is shaped it may not yaw at all. There's a Lot more to making bullets than just dropping a dollop of lead in a mould that's been coated with copper. Look -- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Data Center Operations Group - - http://web.turner.com/data_center/ - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Ryan Montieth Gill One CNN Center SE0813 E - - Internet Technologies -- Data Center Operations - - Hours 9:30am - 5:30pm Mon - Fri (8Sdc, 10Sdc [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - - Cellular: 404-545-6205 ( Suwanee and Manassas DCs) - - Office: 404-588-6191 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Emergency Power-off != Door release! - ---------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gzg-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ground Zero Games" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gzg-group?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
