• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Range Report All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

bigwheeler

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Oct 18, 2008
449
2
68
montana
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/27/...r-isaac-newton/



DRESDEN, GERMANY – A German 16-year-old has become the first person to solve a mathematical problem posed by Sir Isaac Newton more than 300 years ago.

Shouryya Ray worked out how to calculate exactly the path of a projectile under gravity and subject to air resistance, The (London) Sunday Times reported.

The Indian-born teen said he solved the problem that had stumped mathematicians for centuries while working on a school project.

Ray won a research award for his efforts and has been labeled a genius by the German media, but he put it down to "curiosity and schoolboy naivety."

"When it was explained to us that the problems had no solutions, I thought to myself, 'well, there's no harm in trying,'" he said.

Ray's family moved to Germany when he was 12 after his engineer father got a job at a technical college. He said his father instilled in him a "hunger for mathematics" and taught him calculus at the age of six.

Ray's father, Subhashis, said his son's mathematical prowess quickly outstripped his own considerable knowledge.

"He never discussed his project with me before it was finished and the mathematics he used are far beyond my reach," he said.

Despite not speaking a word of German when he arrived, Ray will this week sit Germany's high school leaving exams, two years ahead of his peers.

Newton posed the problem, relating to the movement of projectiles through the air, in the 17th century. Mathematicians had only been able to offer partial solutions until now.

If that wasn't enough of an achievement, Ray has also solved a second problem, dealing with the collision of a body with a wall, that was posed in the 19th century.

Both problems Ray resolved are from the field of dynamics and his solutions are expected to contribute to greater precision in areas such as ballistics.


I would think the ballistic engines we all use are now going to be changed.
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

Very interesting!

And here I thought all of life's mysteries were already solved, LOL...NOT. I wonder how many other math equations aren't solved but thought to be close enough???
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

My guess is that he found a closed form solution for a standard drag model (e.g. Drag ~ V^2) that Newton was looking for. I don't think it will change much because bullet drag is not an analytical function and can't be integrated easily -- you need numerical integration.

I have looked, but I haven't found anything on this guy's paper.

Brad
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

Don't change anything JBM. You work just fine now.
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

I got banned for my racist remark that was edited by a mod then I was stupid enough to go back and put it back in there.

 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JBM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My guess is that he found a closed form solution for a standard drag model (e.g. Drag ~ V^2) that Newton was looking for. I don't think it will change much because bullet drag is not an analytical function and can't be integrated easily -- you need numerical integration.

I have looked, but I haven't found anything on this guy's paper.

Brad </div></div>

This was my guess as well.

He probably found a more 'elegant' solution, but won't result in different answers. Hat's off to the guy for his genius though.

If anyone finds a more in-depth report of this break-through including the actual math, please post it.

-Bryan
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

+1 on what Bryan said, especially on posting the math. I used my limited google skills last night trying to find if the guy had written the results up and had them published yet but could not find anything beyond the "Gee Whiz Nest Stuff" press release stuff and could not find anything yet.

wade
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

I agree with the above that we have figured out where the bullet is going to land. But maybe just maybe figuring out the math more accurately will possibly help out drag models to more accurately design bullets without test firing. What do you think?
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

Had a math prof once who handed me a "proof" he thought I might find interesting. This was only my third quarter of undergrad calculus. I took it home to look at, spent hours and hours on it but though I'd solved it. Monday morning I couldn't wait for class to end and I told him I'd solved it. I filled out one chalkboard full of differentials and godknowswhat (it's been 30 years, I was premed) and he stopped me halfway into the next chalkboard. I'd missed a sign change or some other minor little thing. He said not to worry about it, it was some 300 year old concept that no one else had been able to solve either, but I really had him going for a couple of minutes.

Apparently there are several hundred - thousands? - of these out there.

Will be interesting to see what this kid's next trick is.
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

Going to be great to see it mapped out against real world doppler graph.
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

His Dad taught him calculus at age 6? At age 6 I was sticking peas into my nose as that was more fun than eating them.
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

It is indeed a clever analytical solution to an ODE. It is, however, a 1D equation with a very simplified drag function.

I don't expect that the world will dump its RK4 solvers anytime soon, even if this break-thru leads to a full-blown 2D solution. The solvers today, if correctly done, provide a level of accuracy such that an analytical solution would only see insignificant gains in accuracy. The real gain for an analytical solution is reduced computing power required to provide a solution. In today's world, this is also somewhat immaterial.

That said, it may not hurt to inspire some of the ballistics folks out there to redo their solvers....:)
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

From a practical standpoint, nothing will change.

As JBM said, drag is not an analytical function, and that's the main issue.

But my hat is off to this young genius!
smile.gif
"Nerd" to be sure, but it is people like him who little by little (and sometimes fast) change the world we live in with technological advances.
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hypertex</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: normbal</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...

Apparently there are several hundred - thousands? - of these out there.

... </div></div>

Here's a short list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics</div></div>

Owa. That made my head hurt.

Thanks.
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

I am a little lost as to why a "perfect solution" as it is called would need correcting
by numerical analysis? Mind you I am not much of a math wiz. I only get interested
when it involves something pertinent to my life.
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am a little lost as to why a "perfect solution" as it is called would need correcting
by numerical analysis? Mind you I am not much of a math wiz. I only get interested
when it involves something pertinent to my life. </div></div>

I don't know the paper and calculations by this young man, but I think he solves the equations for a trajectory with drag. These are coupled differential equations of second order. Because of the coupling it was (until now) impossible to solve them. (However, when you assume flat fire, then you can uncouple them and solve them in a closed form very easily.)

Now, these equations contain the drag coefficient, which, I'm pretty sure, was to be treated as a constant. Unfortunately, the drag coefficient of a bullet depends strongly on the velocity, so it's better to solve the equations numerically with a proper function of the drag coefficient, than to use a "perfect solution" with a constant drag coefficient.
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

His formula definitely takes velocity into regards to drag. But now that the comments are piling in from physics nerds I am starting to understand why it
changes little practically. If you've already done all the painstaking trial and error
work it's of little value, more less just a way to say, "I got it right".
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His formula definitely takes velocity into regards to drag.</div></div>

Yes, of course. But I guess, he doesn't consider, that the drag coefficient depends on velocity.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bigwheeler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
But now that the comments are piling in from physics nerds I am starting to understand why it
changes little practically. If you've already done all the painstaking trial and error
work it's of little value, more less just a way to say, "I got it right". </div></div>

Who did trial and error work?
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

But will this help in the real world at say 1500yds? How much?
 
Re: All of our Ballistics Programs are now outdated?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bryan Litz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This was my guess as well.

He probably found a more 'elegant' solution, but won't result in different answers. Hat's off to the guy for his genius though.

If anyone finds a more in-depth report of this break-through including the actual math, please post it.

-Bryan </div></div>

There is quiet a lot of info about him on Wiki. The most interesting is a report about his findings from the University of Dresden. Lucky for all you guys on your side of the pond its in English.

Here's the report and a link to his wiki page.
Comments


Shouryya Ray