Moar Doug Mills
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (76)
sorted by:
I'm doubtful about the conclusions. If that streak is indeed the visual blur of the grazing bullet, it appears about a foot long. The nominal muzzle velocity of the 0.224 caliber ammunition normally used is ~3000 ft/sec. For a shutter speed of 1/8000 second, the visual smear of the bullet should be only 4.5 inches long. Contrariwise, if the smear is real, the shutter speed could have been only 1/3000 second.
This means also that the photographer must have had some shutter activation system that was triggered by the event. Such triggering would incur a delay in the start and stop of the shutter opening. Otherwise, this photo being a spontaneous accident is hard to credit.
It's been reported as a vapor trail. Not the bullet itself.
And just wtaf is a vapor trail in the context of a rifle round in flight
Bullets don't leave vapor trails---and if they did, they would be continuous. But it is possible (as I am now thinking) that it was blood and tissue in its wake.
You are close to right about the velocity of the bullet (.223), it's maybe a little UNDER 3,000fps, but you're speaking of muzzle velocity, the speed at which the bullet comes out of the muzzle. Any bullet immediately begins doing two things... dropping AND losing velocity. You have to account for its travel 130 yards (or some say 150 yards) and realize that at that point, it is probably traveling around 2,000fps or perhaps less if encountering a headwind.
Muzzle velocity is always greater than terminal velocity.
Agreed. Muzzle velocities vary depending on loadings; I was grabbing a representative speed. But the mismatch still applies to 2,000 fps. At that speed, the bullet smear should have been only 6 inches long at a 1/8,000th exposure.
The bullet traveling slower would result in the smear being shorter, not longer… you said it should be 4.5 inches long at 3,000 ft/s, then said it would be 6 inches long at 2,000 ft/s.
Maff.
Well, that's what I said. I was mentally comparing it to the image that was taken. The problem, as I said at the outset, was that the camera speed and the bullet speed are not in synch, if the streak is taken to be the bullet
At 3,000 fps, and 1/8000th sec exposure, a streak would be 4.5 inches. At 2,000 fps, and 1/8000th sec exposure, a streak would be 3 inches.
According to this camera the 3000 fps assumption gives a 12-inch streak, so a 2000 fps assumption would correspond to an 8-inch streak.
Thanks for the catch. My apology and embarrassment. But it makes my point nonetheless.
You may also need to allow for air turbulence to the rear of the bullet, which can cause light distortion. Just thinking of all the possibilities.
It happens, but you need special equipment to see it (Schlieren or shadowgraph images). And you have to get up close and personal, so it is studied at shooting ranges. Reflective material (moisture) would show up regardless of any aerodynamics, and would not be seen as from any other location.
Cameras have burst mode now. He used a Sony A1. It can shoot 30 pics a second.
Pretty lucky capture. He would have been taking images from 0.00375 of any second.
But the exposure numbers still don't add up. I am now beginning to think he did not capture the bullet, but the blood and tissue in its wake.
I don't know what your number is. Based on velocity?
I don't think this would be the case cuz A. Probably a lot slower. B. Less likely to be a straight line, more of spraying every where C. Would probably be caught in the subsequent photos.
https://x.com/gsanskar0/status/1812408764919947721?t=CGh0twSSocG3J6qjMZBp8w&s=19
For the first comment, my calculation has nothing to do with bullet velocity. If you are taking 30 frames/second and each frame is 1/8000th of a second, than for every second, you are taking only 0.00375 of a second's worth of image. The remaining 0.99625 second remains unseen.
For the second comment, any blood/tissue from the wound would trail in the wake. That is a supersonic bullet. Things will not spray anywhere if they are being carried in the wake. An earlier or later frame would be 0.0332 second off, and the movement of the "bullet" would have taken it 99.6 feet downrange (or 66.4 at a velocity of 2000 fps). So, no, I don't expect to see any similar material in any other frame.
Could literally of been a contrail of his atomized ear tissue? its rather... Beige
I think you are onto it, though the trail is mainly reflective than colored, consistent with moisture.