CSI Miami throws science out the window, again

Don't doubt, however, that a bullet fired into the air, especially at an
angle, can kill someone. Hmm, possibly even the ball bearing could do it;
it'd sure smart like hell. I'm guessing 200 fps plus. And what, 120 grams?
(Anyone know the density of steel off the "top of your head"?hahhaha)

"Mythbusters" did a show on that. Turns out, a bullet shot straight up
leaves the barrel at (fatally) muzzle velocity, then slows down (duh),
and accelerates downward until it reaches terminal velocity (which can
hurt, but is fatal only under very unfortunate coincdences of body
alignment to the falling bullet).

As for the fatal-over-distance bit... the bullet does not slow down
*enough* by the time it reaches its target. The farthest a gun can
shoot is when it's aimed at 45° up. Gut feeling tells me that terminal
velocity *could* be reached by such a shot, but I don't believe any
sniper aims at such extreme angles with expectations of hitting with
any practical accuracy or effect. I've never shot a rile with a scope,
but it seems those are the sniper's choice, and it doesn't appear to
me that the shooting angle is more than a few degrees at extreme. If
this were the case, the scopes would be mounted on the side for one
thing (to avoid the barrel tip from obscuring the view).

Richard Evans wrote:
IIRC, the difference was that the bullet shot straight up reached it's
highest point and stopped before starting down. Once it started down,
it was in freefall and started to tumble, losing it's rotational spin.
By the time it fell to earth it was relatively harmless. A bullet shot
in an arc, however, retained its spin and much of its velocity, with
potentially deadly results.

Oh yeah - forgot about the tumbling factor. Still, someone shooting
with serious intent is shooting at an angle such that the bullet will
hit the ground (or target) long before friction in air slows it to
non-lethal velocity ("effective range" is a term that I've heard -
don't know if that's what they mean). I imagine that it is still
possible to shoot somehow that terminal velocity can be reached, even
if straight down from very high up (as in from stratospheric a
balloon). Not practical, not in any likelihood, etc.

In article ,
Richard Evans wrote:

Thanatos wrote:

In article ,
"Mason Barge" wrote:

Don't doubt, however, that a bullet fired into the air,
especially at an angle, can kill someone.

That's actually how extreme long-distance snipers hit their targets. For
all intents and purposes, they lob the round in an arc, like a
high-velocity mortar, and the bullet comes down on the subject from
above rather than hitting him straight-on.

That's how *any* marksman hits a target. Gravity starts to drag on a
bullet fired from a gun the instant the bullet leaves the barrel. A
bullet fired dead level and a bullet dropped at the same instant hit
the ground at the same time. All bullets follow some sort of arc to
hit a target.

Yes, but if you shoot a pistol at someone from 25 yards, that arc is so
negligible at that distance that the bullet doesn't arc down on them
from above.

Hitting a target with a rifle at 4000 feet is an entirely different
skill set than hitting a target with a revolver at 15 feet.

"Thanatos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:17:07 -0700, Larry Bud
wrote:

A pretty good job? I mean, I like the show. Pretty graphics, cool
special effects, but science? No way.

I disagree. I rarely see serious scientific errors on CSI (Las Vegas).

Are you kidding me? They've done the "infinite zoom" thing repeatedly on
the Vegas show, just like the other two CSI shows, where they take some
grainy security camera footage and zoom in to read a clothing label or a
note in a person's hand or some other ridiculous thing.

And the Las Vegas Crime Lab seems to have a database for everything. I
about fell off my couch laughing one night when Stokes took a sofa upon
which a body was found and ran it through their "furniture database",
which not only instantly told him the exact make and model of the sofa,
but the exact store it was sold out of, when it was sold, and to whom.

But the real inaccuracies in the Vegas show (as well as the NY and Miami
shows) comes not in the science but in the law. The 4th, 5th and 6th
Amendments to the Constitution apparently do not exist in the world of
CSI.

They use the right techniques, and they
use the right equipment.

Not really. For example, they put all their evidence in see-through
plastic bags. That's not a good way to, for example, preserve
fingerprint evidence:

The use of clear envelopes because plastic can have
an adverse affect on the future development of latent
prints on items of evidence. The introduction of
excessive heat and humidity and the friction of evidence
against the clear plastic can have an adverse affect
on latent print development. Light, which permeates the
clear plastic, can also result in the degradation of
latent prints. Additionally, the American Society of
Crime Laboratory Directors / Laboratory Accreditation
Board requires that latent print evidence be stored
in paper envelopes (as is the generally accepted method).

Thanatos,

I feel your pain. As a someone in law enforcement, I'm sure that the show
eats at you from the inaccuracies that are constantly perpetuated.

I am a professionally trained medical laboratory technologist. You know, the
person who runs the tests when the Dr. sends the blood to the lab. A lot of
the instruments and tools that CSI use in the lab are the same that are used
in a medical lab. I see lots of inaccurate depictions in the lab.

There was an old medical drama show back in the 70's called Medical Center.
I remember watching one night, and the treating ER physician took a urine
specimen to the lab. He then went over to a hematology analyzer ( one that
does blood counts ), the same model that I used in our lab, and ran a test
on the urine sample in a whole blood analyzer. I was so mad, I turned off
the show and never watched it again. Not only did the Dr use the wrong
instrument for the specimen he had in his hand, but the thought of a
treating ER physician coming into the lab and even thinking of running the
test himself was ridiculous.

Thankfully, I've matured some in the last 30+ years and can now laugh at the
stupidity I see and still enjoy the show.

Mikey

Thanatos wrote:
Yes, but if you shoot a pistol at someone from 25 yards, that arc is so
negligible at that distance that the bullet doesn't arc down on them
from above.


Actually, @ 25yds, depending on the caliber, the projectile
is still climbing in trajectory.



Hitting a target with a rifle at 4000 feet is an entirely different
skill set than hitting a target with a revolver at 15 feet.

Obviously, tho hard, one that can be accomplished with the right
type of firearm/cartridge/shooter combination.....

Most high powered rifles have no problem striking small
targets at 1/4 mile range consistently. The shooter does have
to do his/her part tho.


BTW... is there a reason that you have cross posted this
to rec.arts.tv ???


--

AM

Richard Evans wrote:

By the time it fell to earth it was relatively harmless.


What ?????

You stand underneath one falling on you and tell me how
harmless it is please.


--

AM

On Oct 30, 3:49 pm, "Rick Evans" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

ups.com...

I love it. SNIP predictable Rich rant

You watch a T & A show for science? Sheesh!


CSI Miami is "T & A?"

On Oct 30, 5:45 pm, "Mason Barge" wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 30, 4:07 pm, "Mac Breck" wrote:
wrote in ...
In rec.arts.tv Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:17:07 -0700, Larry Bud

wrote:

A pretty good job? I mean, I like the show. Pretty graphics, cool
special effects, but science? No way.

I disagree. I rarely see serious scientific errors on CSI (Las
Vegas). I
think they do a remarkable job. They use the right techniques, and
they

Well, in one early (possibly first) season episode I saw CSI (LV) get
the
function of a GFCI totally wrong, and the murder plot depended on

that.

They also got the acceleration due to gravity confused with terminal
velocity (IIRC. Can't find my tape of the ep., and don't have S2 on DVD
yet.) in #26 "Overload".

I had a physics teacher that told us if a 1" ball bearing were dropped
off the Empire State building it would go 7 feet into the ground. He
didn't understand the concept of terminal velocity.

I used to hear the same sort of rumors about a penny dropped edge-first. In
truth, it might bend the penny, although I don't think a steel ball bearing
would be damaged.

Don't doubt, however, that a bullet fired into the air, especially at an
angle, can kill someone. Hmm, possibly even the ball bearing could do it;
it'd sure smart like hell. I'm guessing 200 fps plus. And what, 120 grams?
(Anyone know the density of steel off the "top of your head"?hahhaha)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Something like 240mph terminal velocity at 32fps/ps. But the idiot
teacher thought the acceleration was constant and unending.

On Oct 31, 7:25 am, Thanatos wrote:
In article ,
Richard Evans wrote:





Thanatos wrote:

In article ,
"Mason Barge" wrote:

Don't doubt, however, that a bullet fired into the air,
especially at an angle, can kill someone.

That's actually how extreme long-distance snipers hit their targets. For
all intents and purposes, they lob the round in an arc, like a
high-velocity mortar, and the bullet comes down on the subject from
above rather than hitting him straight-on.

That's how *any* marksman hits a target. Gravity starts to drag on a
bullet fired from a gun the instant the bullet leaves the barrel. A
bullet fired dead level and a bullet dropped at the same instant hit
the ground at the same time. All bullets follow some sort of arc to
hit a target.

Yes, but if you shoot a pistol at someone from 25 yards, that arc is so
negligible at that distance that the bullet doesn't arc down on them
from above.

Hitting a target with a rifle at 4000 feet is an entirely different
skill set than hitting a target with a revolver at 15 feet.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A Canadian sniper this year hit a guy (thought a metal sheet,
apparently) in Afghanistan at 2100 yards with a Barrett 0.50cal
sniping rifle. I have no idea what the drop would be at that
distance.

In article . com,
RichA wrote:

On Oct 30, 5:45 pm, "Mason Barge" wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 30, 4:07 pm, "Mac Breck" wrote:
wrote in ...
In rec.arts.tv Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:17:07 -0700, Larry Bud

wrote:

A pretty good job? I mean, I like the show. Pretty graphics, cool
special effects, but science? No way.

I disagree. I rarely see serious scientific errors on CSI (Las
Vegas). I
think they do a remarkable job. They use the right techniques, and
they

Well, in one early (possibly first) season episode I saw CSI (LV) get
the
function of a GFCI totally wrong, and the murder plot depended on

that.

They also got the acceleration due to gravity confused with terminal
velocity (IIRC. Can't find my tape of the ep., and don't have S2 on DVD
yet.) in #26 "Overload".

I had a physics teacher that told us if a 1" ball bearing were dropped
off the Empire State building it would go 7 feet into the ground. He
didn't understand the concept of terminal velocity.

I used to hear the same sort of rumors about a penny dropped edge-first. In
truth, it might bend the penny, although I don't think a steel ball bearing
would be damaged.

Don't doubt, however, that a bullet fired into the air, especially at an
angle, can kill someone. Hmm, possibly even the ball bearing could do it;
it'd sure smart like hell. I'm guessing 200 fps plus. And what, 120
grams?
(Anyone know the density of steel off the "top of your head"?hahhaha)- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Something like 240mph terminal velocity at 32fps/ps. But the idiot
teacher thought the acceleration was constant and unending.

Our 7th grade science teacher taught us that the rotation of the Earth
is what held people down.

--
Jitterbug phone works! (Third time's a charm!)