Yeah, Adam should have said "shot parallel to the ground". I miss this show, but apparently Adam and Jamie didn't get along very well... They do actually seem like very different personality styles... JW3HH
That would cause a major difference in the acceleration in the y direction. The theory behind this is delta y = v(I in y) t + 1/2 a(y) t^2. If the gun is shot parallel to the ground, it would have an acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s^2) in the y direction and a v(i in y) of 0 m/s. If it were fired directly at the ground, it would have a major difference in acceleration in the barrel causing the v(i in y as it leaves the barrel) to be equal to v = v(i of y in barrel) + a t , where a is ridiculously large.
same here I was like go back to school because either you don't understand the purpose of words or you don't understand physics or some combo. of both.
The 39.6 millisecond discrepancy is due to the faults in the "rigs" they built. If they did a SLIGHTLY better job, there would be no discrepancy. However, the fact they got the discrepancy down to 39.6 milliseconds is an incredible feat in it's own.
I would argue it’s also possibly due to the fact that a bullet fired out of a gun does arch up slightly before moving closer to the ground. Meaning that the bullet path is more round ( like a wave) than a straight line that tapers at the end
@Playmeortrademe that entirely depends on how the gun was setup. If you take the time to actually level out the barrel, the bullet won't arc. It was more likely due to the fired bullet's travel time through the barrel. Gravity simply started acting unopposed on the dropped bullet ever so slightly sooner.
Exactly my thought, the bullet in the barrel would only start accelerating after leaving the barrel giving the dropped bullet a fraction of a head start
@@KM-ns3kisince a bullet is radially symmetrical, there is no reason for it to go up. The discrepancy is in part due to the shot bullet only accelerating after leaving the barrel and maybe because the angle of the barrel was ever so slightly (fractions of a degree) upwards
Considering physics irl is a lot messier than physics in theory, especially for an informal experiment like this, I’d agree 39 milliseconds is simultaneous. Turbulence, different air pressures/temperatures, the barrel keeping the bullet from falling, imprecise angle of fire, and inconsistencies in the rig can all contribute to such tiny differences
My bet is on the earth being round accounting for the time discrepancy. From my math the bullet fired had .04 inches more to fall than the one being dropped. Unless specifically accounted for this makes complete sense to being the cause of the delay.
A gun is usually aimed up in a way that it hits a target in a said distance, e.g. 30m. So the bullet makes a parabola going up first and crossing the line of sight of where you aimed at, at said distance, from above. This means depending on how they aimed (barrell or gun) it will have to go up first to fall down further.
I'm also not entirely sure that Adam's comment about "no lift" is completely correct. Granted, there wouldn't be MUCH lift - but there might have been enough, given that bullets are more or less aerodynamically shaped, to have 40 milliseconds of "flight."
The angle of the gun barrel is probably the most influential attribute of the delay At that distance, any fraction above or below parallel will either slightly angle the trajectory up or down. There are absolutely many other factors too, but angle is likely the single most influential aspect
Barrel, yes, but not in that way. Barrel introduces spin plus, even though it has no wings, there is an effect of compressed air just in front of the bullet. In laboratory conditions in a vacuum, yes, physics tells us that they would drop at the same time. But since gravity is not the only force at work here, there is a difference between drops. And aspects of flying are the main thing here. I am pretty sure they got their angle correct (they usually use lasers for pinpoint accuracy with things like these) and that the fact that you've got a spinning bullet traveling at high speed through air is what makes that difference.
Even if they were able to set up the angle perfectly level were they able to control the muzzle of the gun when fired. So many small variables that are difficult to control, I think the time differance is with in what could be expected, for a TV show experiment. Re-watching they definitely didn't control the muzzle jump.
@@traog You don't need to worry about controlling muzzle jump. The muzzle doesn't move significantly until after the bullet has left the gun. If that wasn't true you'd never hit anything you're aiming at. Getting the gun perfectly level is easy to do very accurately, just shoot a laser down the bore of the gun and adjust until the dot on the far wall is the same height as the gun barrel. They make cartridges with lasers in them just for this purpose.
@@stargazer7644 Not significant for hitting a target, but may make enough difference to be part of the small time difference in the bullet drop experiment. Even with the laser sighting down the gun barrel there will be a lack of precision in measuring both the height of the barrel and the height of the laser dot. It will be good enough for sighting in a firearm, it won't be precise, a shooter won't consider the firearm sighted in with just the laser cartridge. Since the whole issue is a very tiny time difference any slight imperfection will affect the result.
@@traog We're not talking about sighting in the firearm. We're talking about getting the barrel level with the floor so the test will be accurate, and a laser is an exceptionally accurate way to do that. When sighting in a gun, you don't put compensation into the sights for muzzle jump. The muzzle jump happens after the bullet leaves the barrel. It doesn't affect aiming a handgun. Any reasonable measurement inaccuracy in leveling the barrel compared to the velocity of an object dropped about 3 feet to the floor would be completely insignificant. You'd need a height error of 6.6 inches to cause a 39 millisecond error. If you can't manage to measure 3 feet to better than 6 inches, then you need to find a new job. A 1/4 inch measurement error would be about 1.5 milliseconds of timing error. I suspect most of the timing error is due to the fact that the bullet trajectory is not a perfect gravity caused parabola. Any lift generated by the spinning bullet moving through the air will cause the bullet to take a longer path and thus extra time.
You cannot assume your conclusion. Air resistance is not negligible. It is the only reason they do not hit ground at the same time so you cannot ignore it. Ants are just as big as humans if you ignore the side difference.
David I said nothing about spinning. Spinning is no issue. The issue is drag. The drag is directly against the direction of the bullet so once the bullet starts to drop the drag gets a lifting component. Because the frag is proportional to the square of the total velocity (not just the dropping component), the lifting component is larger than the drag on the dropped bullet. The difference is small, if I recall correctly with AK it was 2 cm difference on impact at 150 meters.
ccubsfan94 I don't think so, if that's all it was, the difference would be much less than 39 milliseconds. since it would barely take more than a few millisecond for the bullet to leave the barrel once the hammer strikes
Or it could just be that the bullet gets more air time because it's spinning too. I once heard that sniper shooters always aim slightly lower than their target when it's long distance, because the bullet always ends up going slightly higher... Don't know how accurate that is though.
Basel Kader There's a few different variables with long distance shooting, most is bullet drop and wind, spin drift and even the spinning of the earth, but this being such a short distance comparatively, I doubt it has much to do with it. That may be due to scope setup, snipers usually run calculations and set their scope for each situation/shot. So, if moving from one far target, quickly to a close, they may have to aim low. Also for bullet trajectory, oddly enough most ar15 bullet drop can be targeted to work at 50 and 200 yds. Meaning is you sight dead on at 50, it will be dead on at 200, meaning you have to hold low at 100. Which may also be apart of that. I'm not fully sure but its probably explainable.
They very quickly went from using the word myth to mean what it actually means to using it to mean hypothesis. Somehow, HypothesisBusters doesn't have quite the same ring to it as MythBusters.
they even say its not a myth on the show. its a thought experiment in physics. something where the law of physics say it should be true, but no ones been able to test it. so mythbusters tested it, and proved it to be true. after running out of pure myths, mythbusters ended up adding quite a few thought experiments into the show, and this one was definitely a good one. i dont think very many people doubted it was true, just didnt quite understand how or why, and actually putting it to the test really was interesting and helped people who needed the visual aid
My physics teacher did a similar thing, but it was with ball bearings on a platform. There was a spring that shot one of the ball bearings straight forward (it was powerful enough to send it about 5 meters horizontally), and the trigger mechanism for shooting it also opened a trap door to make the second bearing fall. He set it up on the corner of a table and when he fired it off, while I wasn't able to see both bearings at the same time, I clearly heard both hit the floor at the same time, and that's when I realized it was definitely true that horizontal movement did not affect gravity's pull.
No It does not affect the pull of gravity but it does affect the result. If you could fire the bullet 17,500 mph then it would never hit the ground (in a vacuum of course)
In college we did a similar experiment, except we had to also make the spring shot bearing go through a hole in an oscillating metal arm on its way down.
In my college demonstration, the professor used a blowgun and a ball (ping-pong ball sized), with a sensor on the end of the gun that opened the circuit to an electromagnet on a rig a dozen feet away, which held a metal hoop with a cloth basket attached. The professor would blow, the hoop would drop, and then the professor would walk over and take the ball out of the basket. Way too fast to see anything else (this was in the early 80s so there weren't cameras in class) but it worked every time....
@@fredjones7705 @ThaBeatConductor You’re correct that it doesn’t effect the pull of gravity, however that’s not the myth they’re testing. If your gun can shoot a bullet far enough, it will travel so far that the distance needed to reach the ground increases because earth is slowly curving away from it. It would be cool if they did this again with the most long range sniper they could get.
Ed West You put a question mark in the middle of your sentence making it grammatically incorrect. The correct way to say it would be "Why are people under 40 so unsophisticated that you have to explain humor to them?"
now it comes down how accurately at the same time those two projectiles were released and how accurately parallel the fire arm was set up to the ground 😅
Myth not really confirmed. There are several different load options for any sized bullet. Some have more powder behind them, others have less. The velocity of the bullet has a direct effect on the bullet's drop over distance, which means air density and wind are also variable factors that will change the outcome over a series of trials.
@@allthingsbing1295 no no. He did. He didn't reach critical velocity obviously but he did fire a cannon horizontally and dropped a cannon ball. They touched the ground at the exact same moment.
Those 39.6 milliseconds between the two hitting the ground is probably because the bullet has to leave the gun before it starts falling, whereas the dropped bullet starts falling immediately, so the dropped bullet gets a head start so to speak.
@@lord_scrubby8486 They dropped a bullet, just the projectile with no casing, they were the same mass. Additionally mass theoretically has no effect on acceleration due to gravity, a more dense object does overcome drag more effectively though. However in a vacuum all objects fall at the same speed regardless of mass.
@@lord_scrubby8486 Also propellant isn't attached to the bullet. It's in the Casing, the 'bullet' is just the projectile that is pressed into the casing and leaves the gun when fired. No powder attached to the bullet, the bullet is just a chunk of lead with a copper coating...
You probably couldn't tell the difference between a 100fps movie and a 200fps movie any way. The reason you can tell the difference between 60hz and 144hz on a computer is because you are controlling the camera/movement in a game. When you're watching TV you don't actually control anything, you just watch it.
also, in a 24 frame per second film projection, the image is not on screen for 1/24th of a second, it is on screen for 1/48th of a second due to needing a shutter to block the light while the next frame is moved into place, or you'd see a smearing on screen. that 1/48th is also split into two short bursts of 1/96th of a second to reduce flicker. I'm sure they are aware of this, but they simplify things to make them digestible in a TV show format.
Zenith Gaming exactly he didn't either. they have timestamps on when the bullets fell, they literally didn't have to calculate a single thing. just take time 2 and subtract time 1.
Yup. "Lock time" - the time between pulling the trigger and the cartridge being fired could easily make the difference. All guns have a lock time, some longer than others, plus the time for the primer and powder to ignite and then for the bullet to leave the muzzle should all be accounted for. The bullet only starts to drop after it exits the gun.
What impresses me most is that they used the muzzle velocity and gravity to calculate the distance from the firing point to the place where the bullet would hit the ground. They would have had to take into account deceleration due to air resistance and who knows what else. Very impressive to get it that close.
Ohh... they did a bad job at explaining what was they wanted to test here. What was said: "Two bullets each exactly the same distance from the ground, each released at the exact same second. Except one bullet is dropped to the ground, the other is fired from a gun." I thought the experiment was that you had two bullets side by side (as he demonstrated in the opening) you dropped one, and you fired the other at the ground. Which I thought was ridiculous, because the gun would add thrust to the bullet so it would most definitely be moving faster and would hit the ground first. That's NOT what happened though, they were testing something completely different. You fire a gun horizontally from a height, and drop a bullet at the same height, they will both hit the ground at the same time. This makes way more sense, and of course that's how it would work. I watched this video like 3 or 4 times trying to figure out what was happening.
I bet the 39.6ms is the time the bullet takes to leave the barrel after it's fired. I'm pretty sure they drop the bullet when the trigger is pulled, not when the bullet leaves the barrel.
because simple physics tells us that both must hit the ground at the same time if from the same height. their setup should have been set to trigger when the bullet exits the barrel.
dothemathright 1111 But we can also say the bullet does not accelerate uniformly as the chemical reaction of the gun powder takes time as well. The firing pin also takes time to move to hit the percussion cap.
At the same time though, it takes time for the signal to go to the solenoid to drop the bullet on the other end..? Its gotta be really hard to get this exactly right
You *can* observe a 36 millisecond difference, you're just not going to with regular celluloid because of motion blur. Anything moving quickly enough for the film's frame-rate to matter will be highly blurred at speed. You can readily tell this when watching digital video composed of things without motion blur at 30 versus 60 frames per second.
My physics professor did this with a pair of bearings, a tube, light sensor, and a magnet. The first bearing was stuck to the magnet and the second blown from the tube tripping the light sensor and turning off the magnet. Is was cool to hear those bearings strike the floor with loud simultaneous cracks at different ends of the auditorium. Definitely changed the perception of many people.
The important question about the discrepancy would be - what is the standard deviation? If you run the experiment several more times, the discrepancy may average out to zero in either direction, or the standard deviation may be so large thay this value is statistically indistinguishable from zero.
or even more simply, what's the relative difference between the two travel times? They only give the absolute difference, for entertainment/shock value I guess, but that means nothing to the average viewer lol
@@jameswasmynamo I think the 5%-ish deviation would be worse for the average viewer, because it doesn't seem that good. So to make it really scientific, you'd need to do what og suggested and run it several times so you are able to distinguish between statistical and systematic errors.
@johannesroeder274 i was trying to be more simple and realistic in my suggestion, because the average viewer does not know what a standard deviation is and the mythbusters can't afford to run 30 trials of every mythbusters experiment (though this one might not have been too bad). i'm not looking to correct OP or the mythbusters to try to achieve statistical significance my issue with this video is that at the end it feels like they're just spouting off a very small number at me. i don't know how fast a bullet travels in the first place lol, so the impact is completely lost on me. so i ask the question: given this experiment, how could the mythbusters have conveyed their conclusions in a more entertaining and meaningful way? i think just displaying a little chart of the travel times of the bullets on the screen for a few seconds is basically a zero-cost way of giving the viewer a frame of reference without "scaring" them with too many numbers (it would be like three numbers lol). basically, give me the relative difference. no need to dig into advanced stats to give me some more appreciation for their experiment (an aside- maybe they did know the relative difference was fairly high and hence chose not to talk about it..)
To add to the comments below, the slight delay for the fired round could be because: 1) the recoil on the gun means there is slight lift off horizontal; 2) or the timer should start when the bullet leaves the gun barrel not when the trigger is pulled.
Indeed, but if bullet A is dropped at the very instant the trigger of the gun containing bullet B is pulled, you have to include both the time it takes the bullet to leave the barrel (and enter freefall) and the time it takes for the hammer to move forward and fire the round. Together, those two easily account for the discrepancy, even setting aside anything else.
So... my theory on the slight time difference is that the bullet has to travel through the barrel before it begins dropping when it's shot out of the gun. This might seem like a minuscule distance, but it can effect the data on a small scale.
@@targaryen6159 no it doesnt, lift is created by air moving faster on top then on bottom creating a liw pressure zone, thats lift Explain how a round, rotating bullet does that?
This is probably really late, but everyone keeps coming up with reasons for why it technically did not land at the exact same time, when the simple possibility is human error. Even with precise measurements, for the time to be so perfectly close together, a fraction of a millimeter on the height dropped is all it takes for the time difference.
I might be late to reply to this, but with a 39ms time difference the height would have to be off by over a foot (>30 cm). Although I made a bold assumption that the dropped bullet did not reach terminal velocity as I was too lazy to do the calculation. That being said the most likely cause of the difference is air resistance on the fired bullet. Here is a link that describes this episode with the math www.wired.com/2009/10/mythbusters-bringing-on-the-physics-bullet-drop/. If you don't like math the simplified version is that the fired bullet is slowed down by the air when it is fired. As it is pulled to the ground the shot arcs causing it to not only be slowed down horizontally but also vertically.
@@christopherhanlon2077 what if the gun was not properly balance, and is slighly point upward? That would change alot because alot of the velocity become the upward velocity, even at a slight angle.
I'm so sick of this misconception that movies are 24 fps because that's the fastest framerate the eye can keep up with. It's actually 24 fps because that's just about the LOWEST framerate NEEDED to portray smooth movement to our eyes. You'd have to approach something like 3-4 times that framerate to really reach the limit of what the human eye can perceive.
+Kristoffer Tell he's not saying that that's the fastest the human eye CAN register. he's saying that it's going so fast you see a fluid motion picture instead of individual ones ye dummy
+theoxtheory he's talking about the visibility of individual frames 24 fps the limit for the for the brain to see frames as distinguishable from each other
more experimental results too! what if a bullet was let drop to a point of terminal velocity and as soon as it passed the gun, the hammer hits the cap on the shell. Would the bullets time be very similar? or still just as different. What I'd the dropped bullet was spun? etc
This is one of the examples of a myth they knew the answer to, but wanted to do anyway because it would be cool and made for good television. Any physics teacher could explain the theory, and simpler demonstrations to prove it are common. It was great they had the resources to do this for everyone to enjoy.
@@cl13amongus A fired bullet takes (a very small amount) longer to hit the ground for at least 2 reasons. The first depends on direction, we are in a rotating frame of reference due to the earth spinning so a higher velocity in an east ward direction has an apparent deflection upward. The second reason is because aerodynamic drag is a quadratic function of total velocity, not a linear function. Because of this a horizontal velocity will lead to a higher vertical drag, slowing the bullets decent. People who ride bikes experience something similar when a cross wind will slow them down. Also another comment pointed out that a difference of 39.6 milliseconds is massive, an object takes about 500 milliseconds to drop 1 meter starting a rest. almost 10% difference is big enough to say they either had experimental issues or it confirms the myth.
@@Selrahcnedder You are overthinking the myth my guy. The "myth" (not sure I would call it a myth but eh...) assumes perfect conditions, which is why they prefixed the experiment by mentioning that the bullet has no wings etc. Of course in reality there will always be deviations. In reality it might take the falling bullet 2 minutes to fall because by sheer luck a micro gust of wind could keep pushing it up over and over and over and over... again.
Another cool test that could prove the theory is to aim the gun directly under where the bullet is dropped. If they are falling at the same speed the bullets should collide
That would prove nothing. Aiming the gun anywhere but horizontal would invalidate the experiment. To make the bullets collide, you would have to fire it just like they did, but at a distance such that the intersection point of the two trajectories is above the ground. The Mythbusters intentionally placed the gun a distance away that would cause the intersection point of the two trajectories to be at ground height. If they had moved the gun closer, then they might've seen a collision.
It's not the barrel of the gun that gives the shot bullet longer fall time. It's the rotation of the bullet from the rifling, not only does this create inertia that does not wish to be changed bit it also grabs the air and climbs. If the gun had no rifling the time would be 100% identical.
Rotating an object will not change it's inertia nor how fast it falls. Bullets don't climb because of their rifling induced spin. Bullets are spun to stabilize them point first so they have less drag and fly faster and farther. Bullets rise compared to the sights because the barrel is angled upward slightly compared to the sights to compensate for parallax error.
At first I thought, "3 minutes!? that's not enough time!" after watching it this could be cut down to a lean 30 seconds without losing any information. These shows are the opposite of informationally dense and this is actually one of the GOOD ones.
Philip Alpers It can, but the spin axis needs to be aligned so that the air flows against it, so that there is a difference in air velocity relative to the surface over top and bottom, or left and right. Bullets spin along the wrong axis to generate lift. On purpose of course, because they would not fly straight if they generated lift. They would "take off" and end up god knows where.
You trollin' bro? Parabolas are pure ballistic trajectories. I.e. what stuff follows when only gravity is acting on them. So bullets following parabolas = no lift force. Also no drag.
great experiment! fun to shoot and drop at the same time even though you could have just timed them independently. the results reflect reality because the dropped bullet should hit the ground first, which it does.
God I miss this show. I loved coming home from elementary and turning this on, I would get annoyed if my bus driver wasn’t going fast enough for me to watch the start.
0.04 inches is the extra distance gravity has to pull the bullet that was shot from 360 feet away due to the earth curving away from the bullet as propelled forward. Assuming barrel length, and all other factors accounted for, the earths shape is responsible for the 39.6ms difference.
If only you had taken that though far enough to actually do the math. The curvature of the Earth doesn't matter if the aim point of the gun is at the same height as the gun. You can do this by shooting a laser down the barrel and looking at where the aim point is. Secondly, a difference of 0.04 inches is a difference of only 0.6 ms.
The cannonball thought experiment is flawed. Every ball would hit earth, no matter the shape of earth we know that objects fall towards it always. “Escape velocity “ is fictional it was invented by Jules Verne
@@allthingsbing1295 Its not, at least not the theory behind it. What makes you think it is? The only "flaw" is air friction. I can give a more detailed answer, if you want to.
@@johannesroeder274 Because in the real world no matter how much horizontal velocity an object has it still is moving towards earth center from the instant it leaves the barrel. The distance between center of earth and cannonball will never increase it only decreases we know this from the experiment shown in this video. The cannonball , theoretically, could circle the entire earth if shot horizontally fast enough but ultimately it still ends up hitting the ground on it journey to center of earth. Orbital mechanics is Science fiction. The sooner you realize this the better off you’ll be. The first director of nasa was a movie producer.
@@allthingsbing1295 Lol is this some flat earth nonsense? Of course escape velocity isn't fictional, that's literally how rockets and other spaceships leave Earth's SOI.
@@DreadDoom what is your evidence for you claim of space travels existence?? (Telescreens don’t count as evidence) as they are very easily manipulated. I don’t have faith in government or nasa.
Actually, that's extremely interesting. That means you can kind of figure out bullet timing by measuring how far it is from you at a 90 degree angle and that would give you both the range and drop. Then you just simply find how long it takes for a bullet to fall to the ground right beside you.
But yes that means it can be measured and make precise Mesurements both by numbers and by our brain 🧠 but we are using both in realty since the gun was probably aligned but even if it wasn't after the first shot you could make adjustments 🎉
And if you fired a bullet fast enough, the curvature of the earth would drop as fast as the bullet drops, so it would never hit the ground.... this speed is "escape velocity", and the bullet is now in orbit
@@izzmusthe bullet will fall towards center of earth always. It doesn’t matter how fast it goes. The distance from bullet to earth never increases. It starts falling to earth instantly out of the barrel.
Air resistance will mean that the one fired will take slightly longer to hit the ground. Other potential issues in the experiment include the angle of the gun, the curvature of the Earth if the shot goes for long enough, the barrel preventing it from falling, or any slight error with timing. At this precision, all those things can give an effect.
I think all observations are true, and I will add another one. Muzzle jump, at the ignition of the powder recoil commences and gives the revolver a very slight upwards angle. But we don't know which bullet hit the ground first.
This episode was the most interesting out of all of the mythbuster shows. You have to see it to believe it which is exactly what they did. Very interesting.
It's a good thing that they considered their result to be within error because, if they had said on television that they had busted Newtonian-physics and classical mechanics they would've been laughed off the air by ever physicist in the world.
+Kilroy was here Well, Newtonian-physics actually IS wrong though. It is just that the difference between what Newtonian phsyics predicts and what actually happens is so little [on this scale] that it is a good enough approximation.
I think it's more of the time between the one bullet being dropped, and the hammer hitting the bullets primer (+1 step before the bullet is actually in motion).
They didn't land at the same time. The fired bullet landed *AFTER* the dropped bullet. Adam and Jaime messed this one up. Fired bullets generate lift as they spin in the air, which keeps them aloft longer than dropped bullets.
The recoil of the gun doesn't begin until the slide hits the stop on the frame. By Newton's first and second laws, (equal force, but more inertia means less acceleration), the slide won't hit the stop until after the bullet has left the muzzle.
+Magnaniman Spinning does not generate lift unless the axis of spin is perpindicular to the direction of motion and parallel to the ground. In other words, a thing won't generate lift unless it has backspin. Bullets don't have backspin, they have parallel spin. Rifling was invented so that bullets would STOP generating lift.
Hey do you guys see that. Yes that 2 comments up. That is an idiot that thinks he is smarter than a smart guy so he makes a comment to prove it. Little does that idiot know, he is the one who doesn't understand.
Actually I would suspect a dropped bullet to be slower since a dropped bullet does not have gyroscopic stability and may start to tumble thus increasing its air resistance.
this myth is wrong, and the experiment too. all shapes do experience lift if speed up in a fluid, the component of drag in the vertical direction will be absolutely different than in free fall (will also depend on how fast that item moves, in the direction of movement). This experiment is only true in vacuum, where there are no aerodynamics. And still! a fired bullet uses to spin around its long axis, as a gyroscope, giving it angular momentum, and making the falll even slower. speaking of this experiment in vacuum: more interesting will be to do it somehow with different weigh objects, since gravity acceleration doesnt either depend on mass, and the fact objects with higher mass tend to fall faster is actually because of a smaller aerodynamic drag (air resistance). since there is no air resistance, a paper clip will fall in the same time than a fridge. i feel this experiment was a bit set up since a small deviation angle in the orientation of the gun will also add initial vertical speed, thus certainly they will have had different outcomes, and just showed the closest one. Sorry, i regulary like myth busters, but this is absolutely pretended and false. I hope they do better because if not I will stop taking seriously their other experiments, in which i have less knowledge of the matter
Finally someone who gets it. The drag of a rifle bullet is about 60 N (the gravity is 0.1 N). If the bullet is fired at 850 m/s then at 0.1 seconds it as traveled 85 m and has it dropped 5 cm (g=10, excluding the drag). The vertical component of the drag is then 0.05 / 85 * 60 N = 0.035 N. That is one third of the gravity so at that point it drops as if gravity had been reduced by one third. This is a very much simplified calculation. For example the bullet does not drop linearly. With pistols the effect is much reduced. The drag of a .45 cal bullet is about 3 N whereas gravity is 0.15 N
Thank you! This is exactly what I was thinking. When they said there was in fact a very small difference and deemed that different negligible, I scratched my head.
Also a a typical 9mm bullet travels a mile before hitting the ground. They aimed the firearm where the dropped bullet was going land after being dropped. The only thing this test determined is that particular firearm ad ammunition can travel 360 feet before a bullet dropped at 3 feet can hit the ground
What? No. How do you at all posit that a bullet is generating 'lift' in an upward direction only? And since when does angular momentum directly slow the effect of gravity? And no, the upward component of drag is only dependent on the bullet's downward motion, hence why we tend to model physical interactions in x, y and z vectors, because they can be regarded as totally independent.
No they are not saying that. There is a big differences between 24 fps and 120 fps.(96 fps) But there is not a big differences between 24 and 25 fps. ( 1 fps). Do you understand?
No, they're saying that you can't tell the difference between the individual frames - ie when one frame ends and another begins. It doesn't stop things looking smoother at higher frame rates.
+Lindforce they said "24fps is how fast a film is in a movie theatre, and the human eye can't register all those frames because its so fast" - (not the exact quote but its basically what they said) but the human eye can nost definetely see more than 24fps,
The way they explained it sounded like the guns would be at the same spot .... When they started the setup it started to make sense what they actually ment
Few comments for consideration. 1- How close to flat (barring the curvature of the earth) is the floor? And how perfectly parallel(for lack of better term) is the axis of the bore to the floor? 2- At what point(distance from the muzzle) in the fired bullets' trajectory is the other bullet dropped? The fired bullet may still get some adverse velocity variations from expanding gasses beyond the muzzle. 3- Was air density data entered into the calculations? Temp, humidity, etc.. The dropped bullet would pass through much less air than the fired bullet. 4- Since the fired bullet was "rifled" and therefore spinning, would that impart any aerodynamic product? 5- The bullets appear to be more cylindrical and not spherical. So, what parts of the two hit the ground first? The side of the fired bullet vs the nose of the dropped? Just sayin' (I feel this is like the scene in Travolta's questioning in "Phenomena")
Video game framerate needs to be higher because control lag is a thing. If you don't get to choose what happens in front of you, lower framerates are unnoticable.
It's a great experiment, but it would be astonishingly difficult to do objectively without the temptation to fudge the pointing angle. The main source of error will be the ability to point the weapon at an exactly horizontal angle, at right angles to the force of gravity over the length of the fall. Especially a hand gun, even firmly mounted with a laser sight, would be hard to point at an accuracy of more than 1%. If the gun were pointed 1% too high, even a tiny fraction of the extremely high velocity of the gun would change the duration of the fall, dramatically changing the point where it impacts the earth. I suppose you could use the high speed video to look for an arc above a fixed horizontal laser line, but even that would be technically difficult. Over such a long distance you might also find Coriolis effects that mess up your data.
@Bruce Wayne If you know the gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s^2), the muzzle velocity of the gun (assumed constant over the time of the experiment), and the height of the gun above ground, you can calculate how long it will take to fall to the ground, then use that time to calculate how far it will travel horizontally before it hits. The assumption is that the two forces are at exact right angles, which would be extremely hard to achieve with a hand gun.
I thought that they were going to shoot the gun downward and drop a bullet at the same time which really got me questioning when they said it's supposed to be the same time to hit the ground.
This is classical example in the physics textbook but it's the first time I've seen some demonstration on this. 40 ms isn't that large, considering the possible sources of error: slight deviation of the barrel angle from horizontal, barrel length, local gravitational anomaly, quadratic drag, etc.
i thought they meant shoot a gun at the ground vs dropping it i was like wtf
Yeah, Adam should have said "shot parallel to the ground". I miss this show, but apparently Adam and Jamie didn't get along very well... They do actually seem like very different personality styles...
JW3HH
I knew they were different personality types and temperments but I was surprised to learn they did not like each other
yeah and the distance between dropped bullet and fired bullet was huge 360 feet and 1 meter
That would cause a major difference in the acceleration in the y direction. The theory behind this is delta y = v(I in y) t + 1/2 a(y) t^2. If the gun is shot parallel to the ground, it would have an acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s^2) in the y direction and a v(i in y) of 0 m/s. If it were fired directly at the ground, it would have a major difference in acceleration in the barrel causing the v(i in y as it leaves the barrel) to be equal to v = v(i of y in barrel) + a t , where a is ridiculously large.
same here I was like go back to school because either you don't understand the purpose of words or you don't understand physics or some combo. of both.
just to point out, the barrel of the gun may be the reason why there is a 39.6 millisecond difference. Since the barrel keeps the bullet from falling
Well you also have to have it *dead* parallel to the ground. Even a tiny angle up or down will affect the drop time significantly.
Also, any tumbling of the bullets would affect the results slightly, since it increases friction with the air.
EDITED COMMENT: I was wrong. Please disregard.
Ugh you again, we've been through this, the bullet spin does not generate lift. It is spinning in the wrong axis for that.
Lots because of the barrel that gives it the extra time
The 39.6 millisecond discrepancy is due to the faults in the "rigs" they built. If they did a SLIGHTLY better job, there would be no discrepancy. However, the fact they got the discrepancy down to 39.6 milliseconds is an incredible feat in it's own.
I would argue it’s also possibly due to the fact that a bullet fired out of a gun does arch up slightly before moving closer to the ground. Meaning that the bullet path is more round ( like a wave) than a straight line that tapers at the end
Yeah, the bullet fired is also experiencing more air resistance that could cause its angle to go upward.
@Playmeortrademe that entirely depends on how the gun was setup. If you take the time to actually level out the barrel, the bullet won't arc. It was more likely due to the fired bullet's travel time through the barrel. Gravity simply started acting unopposed on the dropped bullet ever so slightly sooner.
Exactly my thought, the bullet in the barrel would only start accelerating after leaving the barrel giving the dropped bullet a fraction of a head start
@@KM-ns3kisince a bullet is radially symmetrical, there is no reason for it to go up. The discrepancy is in part due to the shot bullet only accelerating after leaving the barrel and maybe because the angle of the barrel was ever so slightly (fractions of a degree) upwards
Considering physics irl is a lot messier than physics in theory, especially for an informal experiment like this, I’d agree 39 milliseconds is simultaneous. Turbulence, different air pressures/temperatures, the barrel keeping the bullet from falling, imprecise angle of fire, and inconsistencies in the rig can all contribute to such tiny differences
My bet is on the earth being round accounting for the time discrepancy. From my math the bullet fired had .04 inches more to fall than the one being dropped. Unless specifically accounted for this makes complete sense to being the cause of the delay.
@@pogolaugh that could also just be a discrepancy in how level the floor is
A gun is usually aimed up in a way that it hits a target in a said distance, e.g. 30m. So the bullet makes a parabola going up first and crossing the line of sight of where you aimed at, at said distance, from above.
This means depending on how they aimed (barrell or gun) it will have to go up first to fall down further.
I'm also not entirely sure that Adam's comment about "no lift" is completely correct. Granted, there wouldn't be MUCH lift - but there might have been enough, given that bullets are more or less aerodynamically shaped, to have 40 milliseconds of "flight."
@@WaechterDerNachtthey obviously aim the gun at a straight angle to not mess with the trajectory
The angle of the gun barrel is probably the most influential attribute of the delay
At that distance, any fraction above or below parallel will either slightly angle the trajectory up or down.
There are absolutely many other factors too, but angle is likely the single most influential aspect
Barrel, yes, but not in that way. Barrel introduces spin plus, even though it has no wings, there is an effect of compressed air just in front of the bullet. In laboratory conditions in a vacuum, yes, physics tells us that they would drop at the same time.
But since gravity is not the only force at work here, there is a difference between drops. And aspects of flying are the main thing here. I am pretty sure they got their angle correct (they usually use lasers for pinpoint accuracy with things like these) and that the fact that you've got a spinning bullet traveling at high speed through air is what makes that difference.
Even if they were able to set up the angle perfectly level were they able to control the muzzle of the gun when fired. So many small variables that are difficult to control, I think the time differance is with in what could be expected, for a TV show experiment. Re-watching they definitely didn't control the muzzle jump.
@@traog You don't need to worry about controlling muzzle jump. The muzzle doesn't move significantly until after the bullet has left the gun. If that wasn't true you'd never hit anything you're aiming at. Getting the gun perfectly level is easy to do very accurately, just shoot a laser down the bore of the gun and adjust until the dot on the far wall is the same height as the gun barrel. They make cartridges with lasers in them just for this purpose.
@@stargazer7644 Not significant for hitting a target, but may make enough difference to be part of the small time difference in the bullet drop experiment. Even with the laser sighting down the gun barrel there will be a lack of precision in measuring both the height of the barrel and the height of the laser dot. It will be good enough for sighting in a firearm, it won't be precise, a shooter won't consider the firearm sighted in with just the laser cartridge. Since the whole issue is a very tiny time difference any slight imperfection will affect the result.
@@traog We're not talking about sighting in the firearm. We're talking about getting the barrel level with the floor so the test will be accurate, and a laser is an exceptionally accurate way to do that. When sighting in a gun, you don't put compensation into the sights for muzzle jump. The muzzle jump happens after the bullet leaves the barrel. It doesn't affect aiming a handgun. Any reasonable measurement inaccuracy in leveling the barrel compared to the velocity of an object dropped about 3 feet to the floor would be completely insignificant. You'd need a height error of 6.6 inches to cause a 39 millisecond error. If you can't manage to measure 3 feet to better than 6 inches, then you need to find a new job. A 1/4 inch measurement error would be about 1.5 milliseconds of timing error.
I suspect most of the timing error is due to the fact that the bullet trajectory is not a perfect gravity caused parabola. Any lift generated by the spinning bullet moving through the air will cause the bullet to take a longer path and thus extra time.
Good old physics teacher drilled this one into our brains. Never gonna forget it.
How? The dropped bullet will drop faster but the difference is too small to measure this way.
You cannot assume your conclusion. Air resistance is not negligible. It is the only reason they do not hit ground at the same time so you cannot ignore it. Ants are just as big as humans if you ignore the side difference.
dude no
David I said nothing about spinning. Spinning is no issue. The issue is drag. The drag is directly against the direction of the bullet so once the bullet starts to drop the drag gets a lifting component. Because the frag is proportional to the square of the total velocity (not just the dropping component), the lifting component is larger than the drag on the dropped bullet.
The difference is small, if I recall correctly with AK it was 2 cm difference on impact at 150 meters.
Okaro X Hello fellow smart person.
The lag is probably the time it takes the bullet to speed up and leave the barrel, which at that point it hasn't started falling yet.
ccubsfan94 I don't think so, if that's all it was, the difference would be much less than 39 milliseconds. since it would barely take more than a few millisecond for the bullet to leave the barrel once the hammer strikes
Basel Kader Idk, just a guess. Powder ignition isn't instant, but there's probably more lag built into the trigger system they made.
Or it could just be that the bullet gets more air time because it's spinning too. I once heard that sniper shooters always aim slightly lower than their target when it's long distance, because the bullet always ends up going slightly higher... Don't know how accurate that is though.
Basel Kader There's a few different variables with long distance shooting, most is bullet drop and wind, spin drift and even the spinning of the earth, but this being such a short distance comparatively, I doubt it has much to do with it. That may be due to scope setup, snipers usually run calculations and set their scope for each situation/shot. So, if moving from one far target, quickly to a close, they may have to aim low. Also for bullet trajectory, oddly enough most ar15 bullet drop can be targeted to work at 50 and 200 yds. Meaning is you sight dead on at 50, it will be dead on at 200, meaning you have to hold low at 100. Which may also be apart of that. I'm not fully sure but its probably explainable.
ccubsfan94 interesting for sure...
this isn't even a myth. it's physics. but i liked the demonstration none the less
DroidTech That doesn't change anything though. It's still not a myth
Mandrous The term "Myth" in the show eventually just came to mean science experiments. Which wasn't bad, still fun science experiments
They very quickly went from using the word myth to mean what it actually means to using it to mean hypothesis. Somehow, HypothesisBusters doesn't have quite the same ring to it as MythBusters.
they even say its not a myth on the show. its a thought experiment in physics. something where the law of physics say it should be true, but no ones been able to test it. so mythbusters tested it, and proved it to be true. after running out of pure myths, mythbusters ended up adding quite a few thought experiments into the show, and this one was definitely a good one. i dont think very many people doubted it was true, just didnt quite understand how or why, and actually putting it to the test really was interesting and helped people who needed the visual aid
My physics teacher did a similar thing, but it was with ball bearings on a platform. There was a spring that shot one of the ball bearings straight forward (it was powerful enough to send it about 5 meters horizontally), and the trigger mechanism for shooting it also opened a trap door to make the second bearing fall. He set it up on the corner of a table and when he fired it off, while I wasn't able to see both bearings at the same time, I clearly heard both hit the floor at the same time, and that's when I realized it was definitely true that horizontal movement did not affect gravity's pull.
That's true to a certain point, once you get to orbital and escape velocities.
No It does not affect the pull of gravity but it does affect the result. If you could fire the bullet 17,500 mph then it would never hit the ground (in a vacuum of course)
In college we did a similar experiment, except we had to also make the spring shot bearing go through a hole in an oscillating metal arm on its way down.
In my college demonstration, the professor used a blowgun and a ball (ping-pong ball sized), with a sensor on the end of the gun that opened the circuit to an electromagnet on a rig a dozen feet away, which held a metal hoop with a cloth basket attached.
The professor would blow, the hoop would drop, and then the professor would walk over and take the ball out of the basket. Way too fast to see anything else (this was in the early 80s so there weren't cameras in class) but it worked every time....
@@fredjones7705 @ThaBeatConductor You’re correct that it doesn’t effect the pull of gravity, however that’s not the myth they’re testing. If your gun can shoot a bullet far enough, it will travel so far that the distance needed to reach the ground increases because earth is slowly curving away from it. It would be cool if they did this again with the most long range sniper they could get.
Did anyone else notice "one wheeled wide" in the narrator's voiceover?
Alliteration. "won wheeled wide" instead of one wheeled ride in an attempt to be funny.
He is Elmer fan
Why are people under 40 so unsophisticated? That you have to explain humor to them?
I'm under 40 and perfectly capable of understanding simple humor.
Ed West You put a question mark in the middle of your sentence making it grammatically incorrect. The correct way to say it would be "Why are people under 40 so unsophisticated that you have to explain humor to them?"
now it comes down how accurately at the same time those two projectiles were released and how accurately parallel the fire arm was set up to the ground 😅
Too impatient. 2:56 says myth confirmed.
Well that's how satellites revolve around earth . Just google critical velocity. Btw newton did this with cannons
Myth not really confirmed. There are several different load options for any sized bullet. Some have more powder behind them, others have less. The velocity of the bullet has a direct effect on the bullet's drop over distance, which means air density and wind are also variable factors that will change the outcome over a series of trials.
@@saber-jocky3436 Those are the reasons that the bullet didn't hit at the exact same time. Definitely confirmed.
@@emdee31newtons was a thought experiment, not an actual experiment. It is basically a silly cartoon. Not reality
@@allthingsbing1295 no no. He did. He didn't reach critical velocity obviously but he did fire a cannon horizontally and dropped a cannon ball. They touched the ground at the exact same moment.
Those 39.6 milliseconds between the two hitting the ground is probably because the bullet has to leave the gun before it starts falling, whereas the dropped bullet starts falling immediately, so the dropped bullet gets a head start so to speak.
the shot bullet weighs less
the bullet that is dropped has propellant attached to it, the bullet that is shot does not and therefore weighs less
@@lord_scrubby8486 They dropped a bullet, just the projectile with no casing, they were the same mass. Additionally mass theoretically has no effect on acceleration due to gravity, a more dense object does overcome drag more effectively though. However in a vacuum all objects fall at the same speed regardless of mass.
@@lord_scrubby8486 Also propellant isn't attached to the bullet. It's in the Casing, the 'bullet' is just the projectile that is pressed into the casing and leaves the gun when fired. No powder attached to the bullet, the bullet is just a chunk of lead with a copper coating...
24 frames per second?
PC master race triggered
as soon as he said it i started looking for this comment
You can actually tell if you've played in 60 fps for long enough
its like watching a bad slide show.
I saw Infinity War last week and it actually looked choppy in the action scenes. Then again, I play video games at 144fps all the time.
You probably couldn't tell the difference between a 100fps movie and a 200fps movie any way. The reason you can tell the difference between 60hz and 144hz on a computer is because you are controlling the camera/movement in a game. When you're watching TV you don't actually control anything, you just watch it.
Way better than the Discovery bullshit where they don't even show the result.
still, not about the "feel" off the programme (or show), but it all is still not made visible to the viewer terribly well
Note: the human eye can definetely register more than 24fps.
HUMAN eye doesn't see in FPS....
Yeah, but they're doing a show and don't want to explain another entire topic mid-show.
also, in a 24 frame per second film projection, the image is not on screen for 1/24th of a second, it is on screen for 1/48th of a second due to needing a shutter to block the light while the next frame is moved into place, or you'd see a smearing on screen. that 1/48th is also split into two short bursts of 1/96th of a second to reduce flicker.
I'm sure they are aware of this, but they simplify things to make them digestible in a TV show format.
24fps is faster than the human eye can register individual frames, he wasnt saying thats the upper limit of human vision
@Shanee Bahera
Yeah. 24fps is fast enough to create illusion of movement. Anything less than that and illusion shatters.
1:57 me trying to do math and make it sound like I actually know what I'm doing
Zenith Gaming exactly he didn't either. they have timestamps on when the bullets fell, they literally didn't have to calculate a single thing. just take time 2 and subtract time 1.
This channel is awesome!
yes keep it up
That's what television used to be.
I bet it took 39 milliseconds for the gun's hammer/firing pin to swing forward once the trigger was pulled
@Kevin Langford That was my assumption as well. Probably some mix of the two.
Or it took 39ms for the round to leave the barrel of the firearm. Or some factor of all of them.
@@jamielonsdale3018 definitely didnt take 39ms for the round to leave the barrel
@@jamielonsdale3018 m. M
Yup. "Lock time" - the time between pulling the trigger and the cartridge being fired could easily make the difference. All guns have a lock time, some longer than others, plus the time for the primer and powder to ignite and then for the bullet to leave the muzzle should all be accounted for. The bullet only starts to drop after it exits the gun.
"After days of brainteasing tests..."
*Laughs in Impatient*
This is the absolute best way to watch this show ever. Thank you for making this channel!
After watching the slo-mo guys so many times, 40 milliseconds seems like an eternity in comparison to some of the stuff they would film
They also need to take into account that the timing of the bullet fully dropping from their rig could have been slightly delayed as well.
What impresses me most is that they used the muzzle velocity and gravity to calculate the distance from the firing point to the place where the bullet would hit the ground. They would have had to take into account deceleration due to air resistance and who knows what else. Very impressive to get it that close.
Or they just fired the gun and saw where the bullet landed
Agreed, that was clever. I was wondering if that building was long enough, obviously they knew it was.
Ohh... they did a bad job at explaining what was they wanted to test here.
What was said: "Two bullets each exactly the same distance from the ground, each released at the exact same second. Except one bullet is dropped to the ground, the other is fired from a gun."
I thought the experiment was that you had two bullets side by side (as he demonstrated in the opening) you dropped one, and you fired the other at the ground. Which I thought was ridiculous, because the gun would add thrust to the bullet so it would most definitely be moving faster and would hit the ground first.
That's NOT what happened though, they were testing something completely different.
You fire a gun horizontally from a height, and drop a bullet at the same height, they will both hit the ground at the same time.
This makes way more sense, and of course that's how it would work. I watched this video like 3 or 4 times trying to figure out what was happening.
This is just an excerpt from the whole episode, they set up each myth very clearly before they test it.
Wow, you’re dumb.
testing the whole sigma Fy thing, i think...
Brainlet
I bet the 39.6ms is the time the bullet takes to leave the barrel after it's fired. I'm pretty sure they drop the bullet when the trigger is pulled, not when the bullet leaves the barrel.
Ahhh very smart!!!
because simple physics tells us that both must hit the ground at the same time if from the same height. their setup should have been set to trigger when the bullet exits the barrel.
+vladstr100 well, that tends to be quite hard to do as you need some more serious equipment for that stuff. Anyway, it still worked.
dothemathright 1111 But we can also say the bullet does not accelerate uniformly as the chemical reaction of the gun powder takes time as well. The firing pin also takes time to move to hit the percussion cap.
At the same time though, it takes time for the signal to go to the solenoid to drop the bullet on the other end..? Its gotta be really hard to get this exactly right
Just found this channel, need this for so many shows that drag 60 seconds of content out into an hour
My guy really rode that unicycle to see the results of that experiment. Dang.
You *can* observe a 36 millisecond difference, you're just not going to with regular celluloid because of motion blur. Anything moving quickly enough for the film's frame-rate to matter will be highly blurred at speed. You can readily tell this when watching digital video composed of things without motion blur at 30 versus 60 frames per second.
"The human eye can only see 24 fps!"
*anger intensifies*
My physics professor did this with a pair of bearings, a tube, light sensor, and a magnet. The first bearing was stuck to the magnet and the second blown from the tube tripping the light sensor and turning off the magnet. Is was cool to hear those bearings strike the floor with loud simultaneous cracks at different ends of the auditorium. Definitely changed the perception of many people.
The important question about the discrepancy would be - what is the standard deviation? If you run the experiment several more times, the discrepancy may average out to zero in either direction, or the standard deviation may be so large thay this value is statistically indistinguishable from zero.
or even more simply, what's the relative difference between the two travel times? They only give the absolute difference, for entertainment/shock value I guess, but that means nothing to the average viewer lol
@@jameswasmynamo I think the 5%-ish deviation would be worse for the average viewer, because it doesn't seem that good. So to make it really scientific, you'd need to do what og suggested and run it several times so you are able to distinguish between statistical and systematic errors.
@johannesroeder274 i was trying to be more simple and realistic in my suggestion, because the average viewer does not know what a standard deviation is and the mythbusters can't afford to run 30 trials of every mythbusters experiment (though this one might not have been too bad). i'm not looking to correct OP or the mythbusters to try to achieve statistical significance
my issue with this video is that at the end it feels like they're just spouting off a very small number at me. i don't know how fast a bullet travels in the first place lol, so the impact is completely lost on me. so i ask the question: given this experiment, how could the mythbusters have conveyed their conclusions in a more entertaining and meaningful way?
i think just displaying a little chart of the travel times of the bullets on the screen for a few seconds is basically a zero-cost way of giving the viewer a frame of reference without "scaring" them with too many numbers (it would be like three numbers lol). basically, give me the relative difference. no need to dig into advanced stats to give me some more appreciation for their experiment
(an aside- maybe they did know the relative difference was fairly high and hence chose not to talk about it..)
To add to the comments below, the slight delay for the fired round could be because: 1) the recoil on the gun means there is slight lift off horizontal; 2) or the timer should start when the bullet leaves the gun barrel not when the trigger is pulled.
No, the bullet is long gone from the barrel before recoil can move the barrel.
The only way it's taking 1/25 of a second for a bullet to leave a gun is if the gun is 100 feet long.
Indeed, but if bullet A is dropped at the very instant the trigger of the gun containing bullet B is pulled, you have to include both the time it takes the bullet to leave the barrel (and enter freefall) and the time it takes for the hammer to move forward and fire the round. Together, those two easily account for the discrepancy, even setting aside anything else.
So... my theory on the slight time difference is that the bullet has to travel through the barrel before it begins dropping when it's shot out of the gun. This might seem like a minuscule distance, but it can effect the data on a small scale.
Makes sense, but the result is the same. The two bullets hit the ground at the exact same time as far as the naked eye is concerned.
You also have air resistance as the bullet flies, it's aerodynamic shape helps slow it's descent
@@robinpage2730 how is that happening? to have impact on the descent it must create lift, does a bullet do that?
@@TheGahtaanything creates lift if it moves through the air fast enough
@@targaryen6159 no it doesnt, lift is created by air moving faster on top then on bottom creating a liw pressure zone, thats lift
Explain how a round, rotating bullet does that?
I sent this myth into the forum when I was a sophomore in High School. I was very pumped when I turned on the TV to see they put it on the show.
I was really confused at the beginning because I assumed that the fired bullet would be fired straight down toward the ground.
Agreed, should have pointed out the difference can be attributed to equipment limits namely the accuracy of your leveling for the handgun.
This is probably really late, but everyone keeps coming up with reasons for why it technically did not land at the exact same time, when the simple possibility is human error. Even with precise measurements, for the time to be so perfectly close together, a fraction of a millimeter on the height dropped is all it takes for the time difference.
I might be late to reply to this, but with a 39ms time difference the height would have to be off by over a foot (>30 cm). Although I made a bold assumption that the dropped bullet did not reach terminal velocity as I was too lazy to do the calculation. That being said the most likely cause of the difference is air resistance on the fired bullet. Here is a link that describes this episode with the math www.wired.com/2009/10/mythbusters-bringing-on-the-physics-bullet-drop/. If you don't like math the simplified version is that the fired bullet is slowed down by the air when it is fired. As it is pulled to the ground the shot arcs causing it to not only be slowed down horizontally but also vertically.
@@christopherhanlon2077 what if the gun was not properly balance, and is slighly point upward? That would change alot because alot of the velocity become the upward velocity, even at a slight angle.
Not even close. The time difference would require a 6.6 inch height difference.
I remember watching this as a kid and being fascinated
Doing the lord's work. The worst thing about this show was always the cliffhangers and b-plots.
I'm so sick of this misconception that movies are 24 fps because that's the fastest framerate the eye can keep up with. It's actually 24 fps because that's just about the LOWEST framerate NEEDED to portray smooth movement to our eyes. You'd have to approach something like 3-4 times that framerate to really reach the limit of what the human eye can perceive.
+Spam TheChat Adam mentions it at 2:40 in the video.
+Kristoffer Tell he's not saying that that's the fastest the human eye CAN register. he's saying that it's going so fast you see a fluid motion picture instead of individual ones ye dummy
+theoxtheory
he's talking about the visibility of individual frames
24 fps the limit for the for the brain to see frames as distinguishable from each other
+Kristoffer Tell It's not the lowest, I've seen 12 fps animations that seemed pretty smooth to me
Josef Hornych
it isn't about whether or not it feels smooth,
it's whether or not you are able to see individual frames
Goddamn it. I want error bars on these sorts of tests. What is the difference in relation to those error bars? What is the p value? RRAAAAAARGH!!
more experimental results too! what if a bullet was let drop to a point of terminal velocity and as soon as it passed the gun, the hammer hits the cap on the shell. Would the bullets time be very similar? or still just as different. What I'd the dropped bullet was spun? etc
I wanna know the experimental error and if 39 ms falls within its range.
Garreth Kelly but the bullet fired doesnt instantly fall at terminal velocity.
wow look at you guys you all did GCSE physics we are so proud of you
both bullets don't hit terminal velocity as the high is simply not enough.
This is one of the examples of a myth they knew the answer to, but wanted to do anyway because it would be cool and made for good television. Any physics teacher could explain the theory, and simpler demonstrations to prove it are common. It was great they had the resources to do this for everyone to enjoy.
that's super weird that they got it wrong, then.
@@kittysplode ?
@@cl13amongus A fired bullet takes (a very small amount) longer to hit the ground for at least 2 reasons. The first depends on direction, we are in a rotating frame of reference due to the earth spinning so a higher velocity in an east ward direction has an apparent deflection upward. The second reason is because aerodynamic drag is a quadratic function of total velocity, not a linear function. Because of this a horizontal velocity will lead to a higher vertical drag, slowing the bullets decent. People who ride bikes experience something similar when a cross wind will slow them down.
Also another comment pointed out that a difference of 39.6 milliseconds is massive, an object takes about 500 milliseconds to drop 1 meter starting a rest. almost 10% difference is big enough to say they either had experimental issues or it confirms the myth.
@@Selrahcnedder nerd
@@Selrahcnedder You are overthinking the myth my guy. The "myth" (not sure I would call it a myth but eh...) assumes perfect conditions, which is why they prefixed the experiment by mentioning that the bullet has no wings etc. Of course in reality there will always be deviations. In reality it might take the falling bullet 2 minutes to fall because by sheer luck a micro gust of wind could keep pushing it up over and over and over and over... again.
Gravity says yes. I own you and your bullets.
Also gun lag. Pulling the trigger and the hammer hitting the round.
Where the hell is Kyle?
“One-wheeled wide” lol
Capturing this experiment must have been remarkably difficult.
Another cool test that could prove the theory is to aim the gun directly under where the bullet is dropped. If they are falling at the same speed the bullets should collide
They would also collide if the dropped bullet is slower than the fired bullet.
+Arnie Calang you are correct allow me to rephrase. aim directly at the dropped bullet.
+Arnie Calang no, they wouldnt
That would prove nothing. Aiming the gun anywhere but horizontal would invalidate the experiment. To make the bullets collide, you would have to fire it just like they did, but at a distance such that the intersection point of the two trajectories is above the ground. The Mythbusters intentionally placed the gun a distance away that would cause the intersection point of the two trajectories to be at ground height. If they had moved the gun closer, then they might've seen a collision.
The amount of variables would kill them to make that happen.
It's not the barrel of the gun that gives the shot bullet longer fall time.
It's the rotation of the bullet from the rifling, not only does this create inertia that does not wish to be changed bit it also grabs the air and climbs.
If the gun had no rifling the time would be 100% identical.
Magnus effect. :)
Rotating an object will not change it's inertia nor how fast it falls. Bullets don't climb because of their rifling induced spin. Bullets are spun to stabilize them point first so they have less drag and fly faster and farther. Bullets rise compared to the sights because the barrel is angled upward slightly compared to the sights to compensate for parallax error.
At first I thought, "3 minutes!? that's not enough time!" after watching it this could be cut down to a lean 30 seconds without losing any information. These shows are the opposite of informationally dense and this is actually one of the GOOD ones.
Holy shit this channel is genius. Definitely subbing.
Umm, if you "disprove" physics it means you need to repeat your experiment.
+Ray V Rifling doesn't do that, it just keeps the bullet pointing forward. The spin doesn't generate lift.
ninjafruitchilled spin can generate lift.
Philip Alpers
It can, but the spin axis needs to be aligned so that the air flows against it, so that there is a difference in air velocity relative to the surface over top and bottom, or left and right. Bullets spin along the wrong axis to generate lift. On purpose of course, because they would not fly straight if they generated lift. They would "take off" and end up god knows where.
Spin most definitely generates lift! That is why the trajectory of a bullet is a parabola.
You trollin' bro? Parabolas are pure ballistic trajectories. I.e. what stuff follows when only gravity is acting on them. So bullets following parabolas = no lift force. Also no drag.
Eye can only see 24fps confirmed
great experiment! fun to shoot and drop at the same time even though you could have just timed them independently. the results reflect reality because the dropped bullet should hit the ground first, which it does.
My, the depths of impatience have changed in the last decade
you're doing the Lord's work.
nah mang. i heard bullets keep going on a non ending cycle around the world even through buildings
1:54 That is some insane math skills. Meanwhile have no idea what am doing
God I miss this show. I loved coming home from elementary and turning this on, I would get annoyed if my bus driver wasn’t going fast enough for me to watch the start.
adam shouldnt have said 'shot at the ground' its very misleading. lmao.
these are seriously a great idea
I appreciate the abbreviated style.
0.04 inches is the extra distance gravity has to pull the bullet that was shot from 360 feet away due to the earth curving away from the bullet as propelled forward. Assuming barrel length, and all other factors accounted for, the earths shape is responsible for the 39.6ms difference.
The boys accidentally proved the earth was round in this experiment.
If only you had taken that though far enough to actually do the math. The curvature of the Earth doesn't matter if the aim point of the gun is at the same height as the gun. You can do this by shooting a laser down the barrel and looking at where the aim point is. Secondly, a difference of 0.04 inches is a difference of only 0.6 ms.
Love these guys. Turn "thought" experiments into real ones.
The cannonball thought experiment is flawed. Every ball would hit earth, no matter the shape of earth we know that objects fall towards it always. “Escape velocity “ is fictional it was invented by Jules Verne
@@allthingsbing1295 Its not, at least not the theory behind it. What makes you think it is? The only "flaw" is air friction. I can give a more detailed answer, if you want to.
@@johannesroeder274 Because in the real world no matter how much horizontal velocity an object has it still is moving towards earth center from the instant it leaves the barrel. The distance between center of earth and cannonball will never increase it only decreases we know this from the experiment shown in this video. The cannonball , theoretically, could circle the entire earth if shot horizontally fast enough but ultimately it still ends up hitting the ground on it journey to center of earth. Orbital mechanics is Science fiction. The sooner you realize this the better off you’ll be. The first director of nasa was a movie producer.
@@allthingsbing1295 Lol is this some flat earth nonsense? Of course escape velocity isn't fictional, that's literally how rockets and other spaceships leave Earth's SOI.
@@DreadDoom what is your evidence for you claim of space travels existence?? (Telescreens don’t count as evidence) as they are very easily manipulated. I don’t have faith in government or nasa.
I would say that aerodynamics actually plays a higher role than the barrel of the gun in keeping the bullet suspended for the 39 milliseconds.
youre a good detective.
@@ZeCockOfTheWalk ok?
Wrong
@@Glavin883 you're stupid
“For the impatient” I’d argue, there’s only ever been 3 mins of content.
ngl, this is one of the best episodes I've seen.
Actually, that's extremely interesting. That means you can kind of figure out bullet timing by measuring how far it is from you at a 90 degree angle and that would give you both the range and drop. Then you just simply find how long it takes for a bullet to fall to the ground right beside you.
or you just trust the markings on your sight lol
Or Maybe are brain is actually doing the mad all ready just by the simple fact of observation
But yes that means it can be measured and make precise Mesurements both by numbers and by our brain 🧠 but we are using both in realty since the gun was probably aligned but even if it wasn't after the first shot you could make adjustments 🎉
And if you fired a bullet fast enough, the curvature of the earth would drop as fast as the bullet drops, so it would never hit the ground.... this speed is "escape velocity", and the bullet is now in orbit
@@izzmusthe bullet will fall towards center of earth always. It doesn’t matter how fast it goes. The distance from bullet to earth never increases. It starts falling to earth instantly out of the barrel.
Air resistance will mean that the one fired will take slightly longer to hit the ground. Other potential issues in the experiment include the angle of the gun, the curvature of the Earth if the shot goes for long enough, the barrel preventing it from falling, or any slight error with timing. At this precision, all those things can give an effect.
I think all observations are true, and I will add another one. Muzzle jump, at the ignition of the powder recoil commences and gives the revolver a very slight upwards angle. But we don't know which bullet hit the ground first.
This episode was the most interesting out of all of the mythbuster shows. You have to see it to believe it which is exactly what they did. Very interesting.
Not exactly. This is basic physics
It's a good thing that they considered their result to be within error because, if they had said on television that they had busted Newtonian-physics and classical mechanics they would've been laughed off the air by ever physicist in the world.
+Kilroy was here
Well, Newtonian-physics actually IS wrong though. It is just that the difference between what Newtonian phsyics predicts and what actually happens is so little [on this scale] that it is a good enough approximation.
They did a good job of disproving newtons silly cannonball thought experiment
did he just say that the human eye can't see more than 24 FPS? *TRIGGERED PC MASTERRACE*
He didn't say that. He said that you can't register individual images above that framerate.
I'm grateful for this channel. The show has way too much fluff for me to stand, but the meat of the experiments is very interesting.
The show was designed for 10 minutes worth of in between advertisements. Decades ago when tv was still popular. That's why there were so many recaps.
That's a pretty dang amazing shot to get when you consider all the logistics.
I think they both landed at the same time just The Recoil of the gun change that by a little.
I think it's more of the time between the one bullet being dropped, and the hammer hitting the bullets primer (+1 step before the bullet is actually in motion).
And possibly a delay in the rig itself by a slack joint.
They didn't land at the same time. The fired bullet landed *AFTER* the dropped bullet. Adam and Jaime messed this one up.
Fired bullets generate lift as they spin in the air, which keeps them aloft longer than dropped bullets.
The recoil of the gun doesn't begin until the slide hits the stop on the frame. By Newton's first and second laws, (equal force, but more inertia means less acceleration), the slide won't hit the stop until after the bullet has left the muzzle.
+Magnaniman Spinning does not generate lift unless the axis of spin is perpindicular to the direction of motion and parallel to the ground. In other words, a thing won't generate lift unless it has backspin. Bullets don't have backspin, they have parallel spin. Rifling was invented so that bullets would STOP generating lift.
Haha! Not being able to see 24 fps, now thats a lie!
steelmountain not what he meant.
Hey do you guys see that. Yes that 2 comments up. That is an idiot that thinks he is smarter than a smart guy so he makes a comment to prove it. Little does that idiot know, he is the one who doesn't understand.
Actually I would suspect a dropped bullet to be slower since a dropped bullet does not have gyroscopic stability and may start to tumble thus increasing its air resistance.
Mythbusters without all the inbetween is like top gear without shenanigans.
this myth is wrong, and the experiment too. all shapes do experience lift if speed up in a fluid, the component of drag in the vertical direction will be absolutely different than in free fall (will also depend on how fast that item moves, in the direction of movement). This experiment is only true in vacuum, where there are no aerodynamics. And still! a fired bullet uses to spin around its long axis, as a gyroscope, giving it angular momentum, and making the falll even slower.
speaking of this experiment in vacuum: more interesting will be to do it somehow with different weigh objects, since gravity acceleration doesnt either depend on mass, and the fact objects with higher mass tend to fall faster is actually because of a smaller aerodynamic drag (air resistance). since there is no air resistance, a paper clip will fall in the same time than a fridge.
i feel this experiment was a bit set up since a small deviation angle in the orientation of the gun will also add initial vertical speed, thus certainly they will have had different outcomes, and just showed the closest one.
Sorry, i regulary like myth busters, but this is absolutely pretended and false. I hope they do better because if not I will stop taking seriously their other experiments, in which i have less knowledge of the matter
Finally someone who gets it. The drag of a rifle bullet is about 60 N (the gravity is 0.1 N). If the bullet is fired at 850 m/s then at 0.1 seconds it as traveled 85 m and has it dropped 5 cm (g=10, excluding the drag). The vertical component of the drag is then 0.05 / 85 * 60 N = 0.035 N. That is one third of the gravity so at that point it drops as if gravity had been reduced by one third. This is a very much simplified calculation. For example the bullet does not drop linearly.
With pistols the effect is much reduced. The drag of a .45 cal bullet is about 3 N whereas gravity is 0.15 N
Thank you! This is exactly what I was thinking. When they said there was in fact a very small difference and deemed that different negligible, I scratched my head.
Also a a typical 9mm bullet travels a mile before hitting the ground. They aimed the firearm where the dropped bullet was going land after being dropped. The only thing this test determined is that particular firearm ad ammunition can travel 360 feet before a bullet dropped at 3 feet can hit the ground
I think your a physics student
What? No. How do you at all posit that a bullet is generating 'lift' in an upward direction only? And since when does angular momentum directly slow the effect of gravity? And no, the upward component of drag is only dependent on the bullet's downward motion, hence why we tend to model physical interactions in x, y and z vectors, because they can be regarded as totally independent.
thats no myth, thats the laws of physics....
Erand Smakaj The two arent mutually exclusive, dipshit.
I like this “getting to the point” style Myth Busters show.
This was one my favorite ever experiments.
Lol wtf only people who don't understand the basic laws of physics are surprised.
i Think its more the facty everyone thought they were shjotting downwards XD
Mythbusters basically says that you can't tell a difference from 24 fps and, for example, 120 fps.
No they are not saying that.
There is a big differences between 24 fps and 120 fps.(96 fps) But there is not a big differences between 24 and 25 fps. ( 1 fps). Do you understand?
No, they're saying that you can't tell the difference between the individual frames - ie when one frame ends and another begins. It doesn't stop things looking smoother at higher frame rates.
+Lindforce they said "24fps is how fast a film is in a movie theatre, and the human eye can't register all those frames because its so fast" - (not the exact quote but its basically what they said) but the human eye can nost definetely see more than 24fps,
Also, a 24fps mechanical projector will typically expose a single film frame three times, meaning a projected frame rate of 72fps.
You misunderstood what Adam was saying
The way they explained it sounded like the guns would be at the same spot .... When they started the setup it started to make sense what they actually ment
Few comments for consideration. 1- How close to flat (barring the curvature of the earth) is the floor? And how perfectly parallel(for lack of better term) is the axis of the bore to the floor? 2- At what point(distance from the muzzle) in the fired bullets' trajectory is the other bullet dropped? The fired bullet may still get some adverse velocity variations from expanding gasses beyond the muzzle. 3- Was air density data entered into the calculations? Temp, humidity, etc.. The dropped bullet would pass through much less air than the fired bullet. 4- Since the fired bullet was "rifled" and therefore spinning, would that impart any aerodynamic product? 5- The bullets appear to be more cylindrical and not spherical. So, what parts of the two hit the ground first? The side of the fired bullet vs the nose of the dropped? Just sayin' (I feel this is like the scene in Travolta's questioning in "Phenomena")
"Which means it's less than the human eye can make out" smh must be a console peasant...
Video game framerate needs to be higher because control lag is a thing. If you don't get to choose what happens in front of you, lower framerates are unnoticable.
The thing that stood out to me was the lift from ground effect on the fired bullet.
I love Adam's unicycle
It's a great experiment, but it would be astonishingly difficult to do objectively without the temptation to fudge the pointing angle. The main source of error will be the ability to point the weapon at an exactly horizontal angle, at right angles to the force of gravity over the length of the fall. Especially a hand gun, even firmly mounted with a laser sight, would be hard to point at an accuracy of more than 1%. If the gun were pointed 1% too high, even a tiny fraction of the extremely high velocity of the gun would change the duration of the fall, dramatically changing the point where it impacts the earth. I suppose you could use the high speed video to look for an arc above a fixed horizontal laser line, but even that would be technically difficult. Over such a long distance you might also find Coriolis effects that mess up your data.
@Bruce Wayne If you know the gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s^2), the muzzle velocity of the gun (assumed constant over the time of the experiment), and the height of the gun above ground, you can calculate how long it will take to fall to the ground, then use that time to calculate how far it will travel horizontally before it hits. The assumption is that the two forces are at exact right angles, which would be extremely hard to achieve with a hand gun.
The fact that they knew exactly where to place the paper is an indication that they knew the answer before they ever fired the gun.
I thought that they were going to shoot the gun downward and drop a bullet at the same time which really got me questioning when they said it's supposed to be the same time to hit the ground.
God I miss these two guys working together!!
And the time the electric signal traveled from the device firing the gun to the one dropping the bullet is taken in consideration ?
michaelovitch That’s just about the speed of light.
I thought they meant firing straight at the ground and thought the brain rot finally caught up to them
did he just say human eyes cant see more than 24 fps?!
This is classical example in the physics textbook but it's the first time I've seen some demonstration on this.
40 ms isn't that large, considering the possible sources of error: slight deviation of the barrel angle from horizontal, barrel length, local gravitational anomaly, quadratic drag, etc.
Relating the 39.6 millisecond difference to film is stupid when a bullet travels over a hundred feet in that amount of time