joeb33050
posted this
15 January 2016
John Alexander wrote: joeb33050 wrote: Why not photograph the bullet instead of catching it? We did that 50 years ago, in a photog's cellar.
That is a hell of an idea Joe. What do we need to do or buy short of bringing Doc Egerton back from the dead. Anybody got a strobe light?
Seriously, how much would it cost for equipment? Sounds like it might beat mucking around with oily sawdust much less loose wool mixed with sheep dung.
JohnWe used a GR = General Radio Strobotach, a microphone and a Polaroid camera with asa 1000 film-commonly used on oscilloscopes at the time, long ago. And a gun, a 1917 Enfield with jacketed bullets, handloaded, and some logs.
Rifle in a vise, microphone wired to trigger the Strobe, lights out and camera shutter open. Shoot the rifle, noise to microphone, microphone triggers strobe, flash, camera takes picture. The microphone distance from rifle determines when the strobe flashes.
We took pictures for a company that invented a plastic for electrical insulators that wouldn't break like glass or ceramic when shot-a problem at the time.
We got pictures as close as maybe 6” from the bullet insulator.
I'd guess that today with digital cameras and flash tubes common, even on school buses, that this is easy and inexpensive.
Dr. Edgerton was taking high speed photos early, before the war?
I'm no photographer, but I'd bet that there are photographers here who know all about this stuff.