Originally posted by darkseeker:
Master Sergeant, You need to read more carefully! I said
"1) If fired straight up the force of gravity slowing the bullet as it rises would equal the force accelerating it as it drops back to Earth
so without the other factors mentioned below The bullet would hit the ground with the same force that it left it"
The aerodynamics
ARE then mentioned below!
On your next correction you say that I
quote:
may be confusing inertia and velocity.
Inertia divided by mass = velocity. I could have mentioned either but I went with inertia because the math is easier using inertia rather than velocity.
As for wind and minute variations from vertical vs. the coreolis effect, I was leaving minor variables out of the equation. A simple plumb measurement could minimize the variations from vertical and a calm day would do the same for windage. Additionally The varied directions of air currents at varying altitudes tend to cancel each other out as any good hot air balloonist knows.
And finally you state that I contradict myself and then you mention "minimum velocity", by this I imagine you mean zero relative velocity (as nothing in the universe is at an actual stand still). And actualy, the only way the projectile can reach zero relative velocity is if it is fired at the appropriate angle to counteract the coreolis effect. Otherwise it travels a greater relative distance, penetrating a greater overall distance through the atmosphere and experiencing more air friction or "drag" as you refer to it.
I would also suggest that in my limited understanding of aerodynamics, if the launch velocity were greater than terminal velocity ( i.e. where "drag builds up to the point that the acceleration of gravity and the drag forces are equal.")then the projectile would have reached escape velocity and wouldn't come back down at all. On this I might be mistaken.
Forums 
