Monthly Archives: January 2011

A simple physics problem

Posted on by

Given: Ry uses his AR-15 to shoot 1200 grams of Boomerite contained in a coffee creamer container. On top of the coffee creamer container is a 60 pound steel contraption for crushing charcoal briquettes and launching the dust into the air. Joe takes a video using his Windows Phone 7 phone and puts it up on YouTube*. In the video you can see the explosion occurred at 11.18 seconds into the video. The charcoal dispenser hits the ground at 14.48 seconds into the video. Afterward Ry measures the horizontal distance the charcoal dispenser traveled. It is 13 yards. Assume the acceleration of gravity on this planet at this location is 32.174 ft/sec2.


Problem: Ignoring air resistance and assuming the initial acceleration was for all practical purposes instantaneous answer the following questions:



  1. How high into the air did the charcoal dispenser go?
  2. At the instant after the detonation what were the horizontal and vertical velocity vectors of the charcoal dispenser?
  3. At the instant after the detonation what was the total velocity vector of the charcoal dispenser?
  4. What was the USPSA power factor of the charcoal dispenser at launch?
  5. If used at an USPSA match does the charcoal dispenser “make Major” for both pistol and rifle competition?

Be sure to use consistent units during the calculations and give the results in English units.


Solution:



  1. The total time in the air is 3.3 seconds. One half of the time is spent going up and the other half is spent going down. The equation of motion for an object dropped in a gravitational field is:

    d = 1/2 a t2

    Where d is the distance traveled in feet, a is the acceleration of the gravitational field, and t is the time in seconds.

    The maximum height can be expressed as:

    d = (32.174/2 ft/sec2) (3.3 sec/2)2
    d = (16.087 ft/sec2)(1.65 sec)2
    d = (16.087 ft/sec2)(2.7225 sec2)
    d = 43.8 ft
  2. The equation of motion for an object traveling at a constant speed is:

    d = v t

    Where d is the distance traveled, v is the velocity, and t is the time.

    This can be used to give us the initial horizontal velocity component.

    Since the total time in the air was 3.3 seconds and the horizontal distance traveled was 13 yards the velocity can be solved for in the following equation:

    13 yards = (v)(3.3 sec)
    v = (13 yards)/(3.3 sec)
    v = 3.94 yards/sec

    or expressed in the more common feet per second:

    v = (3 ft/yard)(3.94 yards/sec)
    v = 11.8 ft/sec

    The vertical component at launch is the same as the final vertical velocity at the moment of impact. The equation of velocity with respect to time is:

    v = a t

    Where v is the final velocity, a is acceleration, and t is the time.

    Hence the initial vertical velocity is:

    v = (32.174 ft/sec2)(3.3/2 sec)
    v = (32.174 ft/sec2)(1.65 sec)
    v = 53.1 ft/sec
  3. The total velocity is the square root of the sum of the squares of the horizontal and vertical velocities. Hence the total velocity at the instant after detonation was:

    v = SQRT((11.8 ft/sec)2 + (53.1 ft/sec)2)
    v = 54.4 ft/sec
  4. IPSC Power Factor is expressed by the following equations

    PF = (m v)/1000

    Where m is the mass of the bullet in grains and v is the velocity of the bullet in ft/sec.

    There are 7000 grains in one pound. Hence the mass of the “bullet” is (7000)(60) or 420,000 grains.

    Hence the IPSC Power Factor is:

    PF = (420,000)(54.4)/1000
    PF = 22,848
  5. The minimum USPSA power factor required to make major with a pistol is 165. For rifle it is 320. Since 22,848 is greater than both 165 and 320 the answer is “Yes”.


* The YouTube video:



Quote of the day—Marion Hammer

Posted on by

Every time you try to give people back their Second Amendment rights people go ballistic because you’re infringing on their turf. But they’re the ones infringing on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Marion Hammer
January 15, 2011
NRA’s lobbyist in Florida
From Florida’s solution to violence: MORE GUNS!!
[In the present context the people who “go ballistic” are a police chief and a prosecutor.

One should always be suspicious when government attempts to expand it’s powers. And one should be uncompromising when they desire to expand their powers at the expense of a specific enumerated right guaranteed by the Constitution.

If government officials complain when illegally obtained power is returned to the people to whom it belongs they should be given all the respect given to someone who complains when the stolen property they possessed is returned to it’s rightful owner.—Joe]

Confetti and charcoal dispensing with Boomerite

Posted on by

Ry, Barron, and I went to the Boomershoot site today to do some more tests.

Apparently I left the glitter at my bunker in the Seattle area but we had the confetti and as we passed through Kendrick we picked up some charcoal briquettes on a whim.

The confetti was totally uninteresting:

Dispensing charcoal briquettes was more interesting:

The briquettes are far cheaper than chalk and no special packaging is required. The use of charcoal briquettes for Boomershoot 2011 is now the official plan of record.

We did manage to destroy the dispenser. In hindsight it was a stupid thing we did. There is a construction flaw in the current dispensers. The hole in the center should have the armor plate welded to the one inch plate all around the hole as instead of simply at the edges. We managed to get enough pressure build up between the two plates that we broke some of the welds. It can be repaired and I will do so the next time I go back to the farm.

Quote of the day–Ry Jones

Posted on by

I doubt the people committing crimes in D.C. are reading the SCOTUS blog.


Ry Jones
January 15, 2011
[This was during a discussion of the falling crime rate in D.C.


I was skeptical that very much of the decline could be attributed to the Heller decision since so few people actually have been able to legally obtain firearms in D.C. since the decision. Ry was supporting my skepticism from a different angle.–Joe]

Quote of the day—Violence Policy Center

Posted on by

As household gun ownership has dropped dramatically since the early 1970s and America’s youth turn away from guns, the SHOT Show is proof of the gun industry’s embrace of increased lethality to shore up its fading market and declining sales.

The SHOT Show will bring together hundreds of vendors – including Glock, a manufacturer of pistols used in multiple mass shootings, which markets its handguns as “pocket rockets” – and tens of thousands of attendees, as lawmakers in Congress are expected to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines like those used in last week’s mass shooting in Arizona. The show comes at a time that most of the major gun manufacturers are experiencing a significant decline in demand and falling sales.

Violence Policy Center
January 13, 2011
SHOT Show an Example of a Politically Powerful Industry Desperate to Hide Its Decline
[“Fading market and declining sales”? At first reading of this you might question what planet they are on since 2009 and 2010 were banner years in terms of gun sales.

If you read a little closer you might notice the sentence doesn’t even make sense. “SHOT Show is proof of the gun industry’s embrace of increased lethality”? Where did that come from? By reading further you discover that apparently the presence of Glock is the key to reaching that conclusion.

Reading VPC material is like listening to the rantings of the mentally ill. At first it sort of makes sense but as you look closer you find the most basic assumptions are wrong and the conclusions reached don’t even follow from the flawed assumptions.

Is anyone proposing legislation for mental health tests prior to posting on the Internet? Not that I think it should be done but I could see a case being made for that with the VPC as one of the prime examples.—Joe]

Boomershoot family photos

Posted on by

I finally got access to the pictures Oleg took at Boomershoot 2010 (thanks Barron). Here are some of my family (minus son James who was in the Seattle area that weekend) that I was most interested in getting.

Keep in mind these are just the raw images without any special post processing that brings them up to the quality product standards you normally would expect from Oleg. The tweaks were by me, a non professional, which consisted only of resizing and in the case of the first picture some slight cropping.

As is usual, click on the picture for a higher resolution version.

_MG_4207Web2010
This was me just prior to the shooters meeting and fireball demo on Sunday.

_MG_4311Web2010
This is wife Barbara and I about halfway through the main event on Sunday.
Notice how tolerant she is of me even though I have been grouchy for days? That is simply amazing someone would put up with that.
It probably helped that she received the special edition Boomershoot jacket she is wearing from Boomershooters Fred and Bruce the night before.

_MG_4315Web2010
Daughters Kim and Xenia.

_MG_4312Web2010
Daughter Kim, wife Barbara, me, and daughter Xenia.

Rules are for other people

Posted on by

I am firmly of the opinion there are far too many laws, regulations, and rules in this country. I suspect the world would be a better place if about 99% of them did not exist. I wouldn’t even be surprise if 50% of them could go away and no one would even notice they were gone. That said, I still obey nearly all of them I am aware of. I pay all my taxes. I try to stay within the speed limit and store my explosives as per the advice the ATF gives me.

I can’t tell you how many times Barb and I have grumbled to each other that we must be stupid for following the rules or for not trying to scam the system in some way. She sees so many people in her work at the hospital who get free medical care at taxpayer expense. Many are drug (I include alcohol an tobacco as drugs) addicts or just find ways to get on disability when they actually could be productive members of society. Many of them demand to stay longer in the hospital and be taken care of. They refuse to get out of bed or to do the exercises that would help them become strong enough to walk on their own. They even show up drunk and unable to stand well enough to do their therapy without hurting themselves or their therapist. Your, and my, tax dollars are paying for all of this. And of course they all are firm believers in a government that takes care of them. They are lefties.

They should either follow the letter and the spirit of the rules that give them a free ride or they should be removed from the welfare system.

It turns out it’s not just the “little people” that ignore the rules and get away with abusing the system. A case in point is Arianna Huffington:

Huffington refused to turn off her Blackberry just before takeoff from Washington D.C. on a flight bound for New York City.  Huffington continued to use the phone during and after take-off which greatly antagonized a nearby fellow passenger.   Huffington kept the phone on throughout the flight even though the passenger, Ellis Bellodof, repeatedly asked her to turn it off.  Eventually, the two “caused a disturbance” so loud that security was called immediately after the plane landed at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, and both Huffington and Belledof were escorted off the plane for questioning.  Both were released without charges.

Now, I think the rule against using your cell phone on the plane is pretty stupid. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence cell phone usage interferes with the planes electronics. And all of the recent airplane travel I have been on required that I not just put my phone into “Airplane mode” but actually turn the phone off. The only valid reason for that final rule is to make enforcement by the flight attendants a little bit easier. It’s far easier to see that a phone is off (it isn’t being used) than to verify the phone is in “Airplane mode”.

Despite thinking the rule is stupid I just frown a little bit and I turn off my phone when first asked to so. But this upper crust lefty, Arianna Huffington, does not obey this rule. That pisses me off. The airlines should either get rid of the rule (preferred) or refuse her service on their planes.

But what I think the bigger lesson here is that there are a lot of people on the left who make rules for “other people” yet don’t follow the rules that are supposed to apply to them. Case in point, legislators that advocate for restrictions on firearms. The Second Amendment is a “rule” they refuse to acknowledge. At the Federal level the enumerated powers of the constitution is ignored. Do you remember what Nancy Pelosi said when asked where the constitution gave the Federal government the power to implement the takeover of health care? She said, “Are you serious?” That pisses me off.

They are rule makers. If they don’t obey the rules how can they expect others to obey them except at the point of a gun? Is that why they want to remove guns from the public? Because the only reason they will obey the rules that supposedly apply to them is at the point of a gun?

Legislators, of any political persuasion, that ignore the highest rule of the land should either change the rules, leave the service of this country, or be removed from service—preferably in chains.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

I wonder what the response would be if you asked an advocate for a maximum magazine capacity of 10 rounds how they arrived at that number.

Is that some sort of optimal capacity for maximum public safety? If not then what is that number? If so then where is the data that demonstrates it is optimal?

A new toy!

Posted on by

I just left a comment on a new gun control blog. Here is my comment to their latest post:

Baldr, I question your goal, “My goal, and the goal of Gun Control in general, is to reduce gun violence…”

Had you said, “criminal violence” then I would be with you. But the way it is worded your goal could conceivably be completely achieved (zero injuries inflicted with a firearm) yet have a murder rate that is 100 times greater than what we have now.

That is why the “gun deaths” data you presented is of almost no interest to me. I didn’t dig into it to make certain but I suspect it includes “gun deaths” that were justifiable homicide by the police and private citizens protecting innocent life. It probably also includes suicides.

It is because of these issues there is Just One Question that needs to be answered before I can see any point in having a discussion about placing restrictions on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. That question is: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons? If you can’t successfully answer that question affirmatively then I don’t see any point in having a discussion.

Rights, needs, and wants

Posted on by

There is a common “mistake” advocates of anti-freedom legislation make. In many cases I doubt that is an actual mistake but more likely just a deceptive method of argument but I tend to give people a chance or two before coming down on them for deliberate deception.

They insist that “no one needs” X, Y, or Z and hence there is little or no downside to restricting or banning X, Y, and Z. Brady Campaign Board member Joan Peterson made this mistake (I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here) in her most recent blog post.

I left a comment on her blog and reproduce it here because of the danger that it will fall victim to “Reasoned Discourse”:

Japete,

Your understanding of things is a little mixed up. It’s called a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. Because of this it is required that the government demonstrate that any gun law pass scrutiny. There are various levels of scrutiny and the level of protection the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is given is still somewhat ambiguous. But basically it is up to the advocates of a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms that they need the law. It’s not up to the defenders of the right to demonstrate they need the freedom the constitution guarantees.

In other words it is not within the power of our government to “allow” the sale of products related to the right to keep and bear arms. The government must demonstrate they have both the authority and the need to restrict them.

Even if you can demonstrate the government has the authority you are going to be hard pressed to demonstrate the need to restrict standard capacity magazines. I have put together a little video to explain why such a restriction actually does harm with near zero potential for good: http://bit.ly/f2C8Vl.

And in case you haven’t heard anyone other than the NRA say something about 30 round magazines (and I don’t think they have said anything either), I think 30 round magazines are a good idea in some situations. I have several of them for some of my guns. And I have more magazines than I can easily count that are of capacity greater than 10.

If there weren’t a substantial number of people that thought that then there wouldn’t be a market for them and they would only exist as novelties, engineering prototypes, and museums of failed products. Since they are quite common there must be a large number of people that disagree with your desire to ban them.

I know, I know–Almost for certain I’m wasting my time attempting to deal rationally with the person who is the defining case of Peterson Syndrome. But it’s for the others that might be reading, right?

Update: She allowed the comment and responded:

No Joe, I am not at all mixed up. I believe what I wrote. Most in the public also believe it after this shooting especially. Your video only indicates to me that you must expect to be in some situation where you will need to fire off a lot of bullets in case you intend to shoot a lot of people. I very much doubt that you will need to do that in a situation of self defense. You are the one who is mixed up. Because I don’t agree with you does not make me mixed up. It just makes me someone with an opinion different from your own. It won’t do anything for the discussion, which you don’t want to have about this one, to call me mixed up or anyone else who disagrees with you. I will disagree and I won’t say you are mixed up again if you stop saying it about me. O.K.?

Okay. I give up—again. She simply cannot understand a train of thought that differs from her own. I tried to explain to her a simple portion of the constitution relating to enumerated powers and protected rights and she comes back with “I believe what I wrote”.

There is a reason why she is the defining example of Peterson Syndrome.

Relevance

Posted on by

About 20 hours ago I posted a video on YouTube in response to the Tucson shooting and those advocating a restriction on magazine capacity. Since then it has been viewed over 400 times. This is an average of slightly over 20 views per hour.

On January 10th, two days ago, the Brady Campaign posted “Brady President Paul Helmke’s thoughts on the Tucson Shooting” on YouTube. In the approximately 48 hours it has been up it has been viewed 51 times, one of those views being mine. This is an average view rate of slightly over one view per hour.

Do the math Paul. You are no longer relevant when I can get people to view my facts and opinions at a rate 20 times that of yours while advocating a position directly opposed to your agenda.

Quote of the day—Paul Helmke

Posted on by

What this shooting did is it showed how weak the gun laws are in this country. And the fact that this person apparently did everything legal until he pulled the trigger just shows how weak those gun laws are.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
January 12, 2011
Will Tucson Tragedy Shift Gun Control Debate?
[Wow!

Imagine having that criteria applied to other things:

  • The slanderer did everything legal right up to the point where she opened his mouth.
  • The assaulter did everything legal right up to the point where he struck his victim.
  • The speeder did everything legal right up to the point where she exceeded the speed limit.
  • The shoplifter did everything legal right up to the point where he walked out the door without paying for it.

The very name of “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” tells you all you need to know to oppose them. They want to prevent “gun violence”. If they wanted to prevent slander or libel they would rightly be seen as wanting to infringe upon free speech. The same is true of their advocating for more restrictions on firearms. Their goal is, clearly, the infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms, most people now recognize it, and the above quote shows they don’t even try to hide it.—Joe]

Reload time

Posted on by

Watch the video then decide.

Which is it? Ignorance or opposition to legitimate self-defense?

Now go ask those attempting to restrict our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms the same question.

Quote of the day—smoakingun

Posted on by

Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove… But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction.

smoakingun
From his signature line on the Fire Line Forum starting on April 25, 2009.
See also http://www.despair.com/lithographs.html.
[Of course this is a distortion of Forest E. Witcraft’s version.

Sometimes I wonder about the changes I make in the world and the potential with Boomershoot.—Joe]

Photographic proof

Posted on by

I received a Tweet from thumper242 requesting:

Can we get photographic proof of how ridiculous the temperature is in the Republic of Northern Idaho?

Here are some samples from the Boomershoot site last weekend. Click on them to see a higher resolution version:

IMG_5027Web2011
The bush nearest the road at the tree line.

IMG_5030Web2011
Looking north from just south of the creek.

IMG_5033Web2011
The hillside we shoot into.

IMG_5054Web2011
The Taj Mahal.

IMG_5060Web2011
The top of the Wi-Fi antenna from a different angle.

IMG_5055Web2011
The concrete blocks we use to put the tables on when manufacturing targets.

IMG_5057Web2011
The snow in front of the Taj. Somehow my pictures just don’t capture how sharp, sparkly, and beautiful it was.

IMG_5062Web2011
I dropped the plastic pitcher we use for scooping the ammonium nitrate onto the concrete floor. It fractured.

First and Second Amendment should be off the table

Posted on by

As you may know Pima Country Sheriff Clarence Dupnik claims Rush Limbaugh bears some responsibility for the shooting in Tucson this weekend:



The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information,” Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said today. “[Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences.”


Limbaugh today railed against the media and Dupnik for trying to draw a link between the heated political climate and the shooting rampage, calling the sheriff a “fool.” But Dupnik stood by his assertions.


Others claim the sheriff bears the responsibility for not providing proper security for the Congresswoman:



If he would have done his job, maybe this doesn’t happen,” Republican state Rep. Jack Harper said in an interview Monday. “Sheriff Dupnik did not provide for the security of a U.S. congresswoman.


Here is what one of my “shooting buddies” said to Sheriff Dupnik:



From: Joe Durnbaugh
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 4:39 PM
Subject: Sheriff Dupnik


Here is the email I sent to the Pima County Sheriff yesterday (hope I don’t get on some watch list):
 
Dear Sheriff Dupnik,
I am a retired law enforcement officer, and I cannot understand how your public comments, as a law enforcement professional, contribute anything to civil discourse. If anything, your vitriolic and partisan comments do nothing but aggravate the political polarity in this country. You, sir, are an embarrassment to law enforcement. You should learn to shut your pie hole and keep your idiotic opinions to yourself. Please, do the residents of your county a favor and retire at the earliest opportunity!
 
Joe Durnbaugh


All the data is not in yet but it looks as if politics were essentially unrelated to the shooting. The political left appears to have jumped the gun (or Planck Time) and assigned blame prior to having facts supporting their preconceived notions.


I’ll have to think on this some more but it may be this shooting incident will bring into the spotlight a much more difficult question to answer than issues related to the First and Second Amendment. The issue is mental health. The simple answer is a mental health test for gun ownership.


But if someone isn’t mentally competent to possess a firearm are they any more competent to possess a can of gasoline and a book of matches? Here, here, and here are some attempts and successes at using gasoline for mass murders.


Or how about sharp objects? The Sharon Tate murders or Lizzie Borden probably will continue to have as much or more notoriety that the assassination attempt of Representative Giffords.


Attacks on the Bill of Rights should stay off the table but there may be some opportunity for “violence prevention” if a national discussion ensues over mental health.


Clayton Cramer brought this very topic up in April of 2009. Perhaps a discussion on the topic will find a way to reduce the risks without restricting our rights.

Boomershoot confetti

Posted on by

On Saturday I purchased a half pound each of three different colors of glitter. Then at the suggestion of Breda I ordered a pound of “Metallic Multi Color Mylar Confetti” this morning. The plan is to use the “Chalk Dispensers” as “Glitter/Confetti Dispensers” and see if that overcomes the problem with the powdered chalk turning into lumps.

The cost is $10/pound for the glitter and, after shipping, $15/pound for the confetti compared to about $1/pound for chalk. But a pound of confetti is going to have a much greater volume than either the glitter or the powdered chalk. The cost difference really doesn’t matter to me if we get the desired display instead of a few lumps of chalk falling, essentially unnoticed, from the sky.

Test results to follow within a month or so…

You’re the Boomershoot guy

Posted on by

[The following story is true. The names and many of the details have been obscured to protect the guilty. The dialog has been altered to make it more readable, concise, and enhance dramatic effect.]

A few months ago I was at a social gathering and a certain couple asked me about Barb who was not in attendance. They had met her before and said they would like to see her again. I told them it was her week to work in Idaho. They expressed interest in seeing her the next time she came over to the Seattle area and I told them I would tell her. Over the following months similar encounters occurred.

When I informed Barb she said, “They aren’t interested in me. It just that you are the Boomershoot guy.” I expressed my skepticism but allowed that hypothesis contained a grain of truth. The husband of the couple had previously attended Boomershoot and expressed his enthusiasm for the event. But I couldn’t really see how that would extend to Barb and me in the manner indicated. But you don’t stay married as long as I have by arguing with your wife over issues that just don’t matter.

As the months went on the husband attended the social events less frequently and the wife continued to attend. She and I sort of hung out together some and it was pretty obvious she was expressing more “interest” in me than others at the events. Not that I minded. I enjoyed her company too. She is smart, funny, about my age, and a pleasure to be around. But I eventually asked, “Why are you so interested in me?” Her answer, “Because you are the Boomershoot guy!”

Oh!

Barbara was right. I sometimes don’t like to admit that and this was one of those times. Oh well. It doesn’t matter. Or does it?

It wasn’t too much later that I was attempting to get registration opened up for Boomershoot 2011 and I attended another social event at which the wife was there. The conversation went something like this:

Wife [in a low voice as she is stroking my shoulder]: My husband thinks I should be able to get one of those Boomershoot positions from you.

Joe: Where is your husband?

Wife [moving very close and looking me square in the eyes]: He’s at home tonight. But he helped me shave for you. Won’t that help get one of those positions?

Joe: You’ll be among the first to know when registration is opened up.

I did let them know all the details as to when registration opened up for Boomershoot and the husband got his position. For the payment I was offered “Cash, on your dresser.” I took payment online via a credit card.

The next time I attended Barbara went with me. The wife was there but didn’t hang around with Barb and I. I wonder why?

Then after the post I made mentioning the above events I received an email from the wife:

You should have told everyone sex did get my husband the position he wanted. Think of all of the propositions you would get from women and men too. Your evenings and weekends would be one, hot, lusty encounter after the other. You’d be so busy you couldn’t get ready for Boomershoot.

A groupie

She has a point. I’ll have to consider that for some other time when I no longer have an interest in being married.

I think there are some lessons to be learned here.

  1. Despite what the anti-gun people would like to think, and make you think, men with access to guns and explosives attract women. I have another post I have been meaning to do for quite some time that will confirm it–nearly beyond all doubt.
  2. If men are offering their wives as payment for Boomershoot then it either must be overpriced or I need to expand the number of (shooting) positions.
  3. I will not have a problem getting Barb to attend each and every Boomershoot.