School Shooting in America

[Derek 2.0]

No, the strength in your index finger being able to pull the trigger allows you to fire a gun.

No, if gravity and the laws of motion worked as you've been stating, defying Issac Newton no doubt, no man could fire a gun more than once......

[On Guard for Thee]

What is "G's" a measurement of?

As I pointed out in basic terms, you have a weight based on your size and mass and it's what shows up on that bathroom scale. That's 1 G. If you accelerate or decelerate that weight changes. Each time it increases or decreases by a multiple of itself is a G, either negative or positive. But again, that is for a different thread. We are trying to put gps chips in guns to save school children with this one.

[Derek 2.0]

As I pointed out in basic terms, you have a weight based on your size and mass and it's what shows up on that bathroom scale. That's 1 G. If you accelerate or decelerate that weight changes. Each time it increases or decreases by a multiple of itself is a G, either negative or positive. But again, that is for a different thread. We are trying to put gps chips in guns to save school children with this one.

Yet none of that relates to the conservation of motion.........hence, shock damage induced by recoil negates the viability of any electronic device incorporated into a firearm over the life of said firearm.......there is no market for such a device.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yet none of that relates to the conservation of motion.........hence, shock damage induced by recoil negates the viability of any electronic device incorporated into a firearm over the life of said firearm.......there is no market for such a device.

Wrong again. I don't know if you have a cell phone with a gps chip in it or not. But if you do, you could throw it on the floor quite hard and the gps function would still work. They have them in aircraft as well so it can send the position of the crash site location to a satellite should such a thing occur. BTW that takes a minimum of 3 g's to set off. But I didin't want to confuse you with too much info. And if you do drop your phone and break it don't blame me. I'm just sayin'.

[Bonam]

Man it's painful to watch people talk about science here.

What is imparted on the gun when it fires a bullet is a force (for a short period of time), which results in an acceleration. That acceleration, integrated over the time that the force is felt (a few milliseconds) results in the gun's recoil velocity. The acceleration is measured in units of distance / time^squared. For example, m/s^2. The common parlance of "how many G's of acceleration" refers to the fact that one Earth standard gravity is 9.81 m/s^2. What that means is if you are in free fall on Earth, after 1 second, you will be falling at a speed of 9.81 m/s (excluding effects from air resistance). Any acceleration can be measured in units of "G's", if one is so inclined. The force is not a "g-force" since it is not gravitational in nature, but the acceleration caused by it can still be measured in G's.

For example, the acceleration that an astronaut feels while being launched to space in a rocket is commonly talked about in Gs, and for many rockets is around 3g (~30 m/s^2). A fighter pilot being ejected from their plane with the ejection seat experiences 12-14g for a short duration. The best performing sports cars can cause the driver to experience about 1g of force as they accelerate or do a tight high speed turn.

Back to the gun: for most calculations related to recoil, it is often the recoil velocity, recoil momentum, or recoil energy that is important. However, when one is considering physical damage to a component, it is the force that is of primary importance, and that is directly proportional to acceleration. Quickly googling around, it seems that many guns experience somewhere in the range of 500 g's (5000 m/s^2) of acceleration when firing a projectile. Since recoil velocities are on the order of 20 m/s or so, that means they experience the 500 g acceleration for about 4 milliseconds (this data was for a particular gun but it seems very many of them are all within a factor of 2 of each other or so).

Components that are rated for shock loading are specified in terms of a curve for their safe operating point on a graph as a function of both acceleration rate and acceleration time. The longer the time an object is exposed to a given acceleration, the less acceleration it takes to damage the object. For example, humans can survive 7-8g for long time periods, 10g for 1 minute, 20g for 10 seconds, and 25g for 1 second, according to some early experiments. There are many electronic components that are rated to withstand 500g for 4 ms (0.004 seconds). Therefore, if one were so inclined, one could place electronics inside a gun that would continue to function. This is empirically true since guns with biometrics and other electronic features are already available, and the electronics do not fail after a discharge. A gps chip and transmitter does not include any components that are inherently/fundamentally more fragile.

Therefore in my estimation there would not be any insurmountable technical difficulty in installing a gps chip in a gun and having it work reliably.

Probably by far the bigger technical problem in the successful implementation of gps tracking for guns would be that to make the gun's location known to any tracking system (such as a satellite or cell tower) from a long distance (i.e. outside RFID range), the gun would need to transmit its gps coordinates, and transmitting information takes energy. Therefore, the gun would need a battery to power the transmitter. If the gun's battery were discharged, disabled, or removed, it would no longer transmit its coordinates. One could devise a system where the gun cannot be fired if the battery is discharged, but people who own guns would likely look on that as a significant impediment to the gun's reliability and usefulness and not buy such a gun.

Hope that clears everything up for people.

Edited October 30, 2014 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

Man it's painful to watch people talk about science here.

.....Hope that clears everything up for people.

Yes and no....as there are other practical matters of manufacturing, quality, and reliability to be considered for such a proposed firearms GPS protocol specific to a gun. Other environmental factors would come into play over the life cycle of an externally or internally chipped/tagged firearm, including but not limited to vibration, shock (independent from cartridge discharge and/or case extraction), temperature cycling, hot/cold temperature soak, corrosion, solvent/chemical exposure (e.g. from cleaning), resistance to water immersion, etc. Some of these issues are readily solved by encapsulation, conformal coating, and hermetically sealed components.

Tagging systems already exist for gun shows and firearms management at armories and in the field. Semi-permanent tags can be retrofitted inside or under grip covers or in the stock of a long gun. None are considered to be reliable, long range tracking systems.

[Derek 2.0]

Therefore in my estimation there would not be any insurmountable technical difficulty in installing a gps chip in a gun and having it work reliably.

In your view, why has there not yet been a rifle scope that can maintain its zero with repeated use?

[Derek 2.0]

Yes and no....as there are other practical matters of manufacturing, quality, and reliability to be considered for such a proposed firearms GPS protocol specific to a gun. Other environmental factors would come into play over the life cycle of an externally or internally chipped/tagged firearm, including but not limited to vibration, shock (independent from cartridge discharge and/or case extraction), temperature cycling, hot/cold temperature soak, corrosion, solvent/chemical exposure (e.g. from cleaning), resistance to water immersion, etc. Some of these issues are readily solved by encapsulation, conformal coating, and hermetically sealed components.

Yet those very same factors affect scopes/optics........show me a scope, any scope (and I'd buy one) that will keep it zero with long term usage.

[On Guard for Thee]

Man it's painful to watch people talk about science here.

What is imparted on the gun when it fires a bullet is a force (for a short period of time), which results in an acceleration. That acceleration, integrated over the time that the force is felt (a few milliseconds) results in the gun's recoil velocity. The acceleration is measured in units of distance / time^squared. For example, m/s^2. The common parlance of "how many G's of acceleration" refers to the fact that one Earth standard gravity is 9.81 m/s^2. What that means is if you are in free fall on Earth, after 1 second, you will be falling at a speed of 9.81 m/s (excluding effects from air resistance). Any acceleration can be measured in units of "G's", if one is so inclined. The force is not a "g-force" since it is not gravitational in nature, but the acceleration caused by it can still be measured in G's.

For example, the acceleration that an astronaut feels while being launched to space in a rocket is commonly talked about in Gs, and for many rockets is around 3g (~30 m/s^2). A fighter pilot being ejected from their plane with the ejection seat experiences 12-14g for a short duration. The best performing sports cars can cause the driver to experience about 1g of force as they accelerate or do a tight high speed turn.

Back to the gun: for most calculations related to recoil, it is often the recoil velocity, recoil momentum, or recoil energy that is important. However, when one is considering physical damage to a component, it is the force that is of primary importance, and that is directly proportional to acceleration. Quickly googling around, it seems that many guns experience somewhere in the range of 500 g's (5000 m/s^2) of acceleration when firing a projectile. Since recoil velocities are on the order of 20 m/s or so, that means they experience the 500 g acceleration for about 4 milliseconds (this data was for a particular gun but it seems very many of them are all within a factor of 2 of each other or so).

Components that are rated for shock loading are specified in terms of a curve for their safe operating point on a graph as a function of both acceleration rate and acceleration time. The longer the time an object is exposed to a given acceleration, the less acceleration it takes to damage the object. For example, humans can survive 7-8g for long time periods, 10g for 1 minute, 20g for 10 seconds, and 25g for 1 second, according to some early experiments. There are many electronic components that are rated to withstand 500g for 4 ms (0.004 seconds). Therefore, if one were so inclined, one could place electronics inside a gun that would continue to function. This is empirically true since guns with biometrics and other electronic features are already available, and the electronics do not fail after a discharge. A gps chip and transmitter does not include any components that are inherently/fundamentally more fragile.

Therefore in my estimation there would not be any insurmountable technical difficulty in installing a gps chip in a gun and having it work reliably.

Probably by far the bigger technical problem in the successful implementation of gps tracking for guns would be that to make the gun's location known to any tracking system (such as a satellite or cell tower) from a long distance (i.e. outside RFID range), the gun would need to transmit its gps coordinates, and transmitting information takes energy. Therefore, the gun would need a battery to power the transmitter. If the gun's battery were discharged, disabled, or removed, it would no longer transmit its coordinates. One could devise a system where the gun cannot be fired if the battery is discharged, but people who own guns would likely look on that as a significant impediment to the gun's reliability and usefulness and not buy such a gun.

Hope that clears everything up for people.

You've reiterated what is already known, except for your G force numbers on rockets going to space. Space shuttle you can get it down to 3 G's, rockets are substantially more. I agree keeping a gps chip imbedded in a gun powered could be a bit of a conundrum, but as you say it could be integrated into the firing mechanism. As for people not wanting to buy it, well, I can remember the days when people said they wouldn't wear those damn seat belts when they became mandatory in cars. Now I don't know anybody who gives it a second thought as they buckle up. I wonder how many people didn't get killed by finally waking up?