Wow wanderer, that's nice the third dimension already !! and some idea of a speed and velocity change.  I don't have the knowlage to judge it but like the idea lot.  If we can get all that from a scrap of video .......

The numbers in the example were not intended to be seem as some sort of result.  I only used them in order to work through the method to make it clearer, do I hear laughter, and to give. people some data to play with.  I don't even know if the method is ok, is it?  We need a lot more numbers and samples before we have any idea what the margin of error is.  The biggest error is in determining when the image of the splash gets to the camera as frame rate forces a subjective guess.  As it is subjective the safest way is to have several different peoples interpretations.

As wanderer points out there is another known factor, gravity, so it is not only for the hypothetical flat line.  Would I be right in thinking that if the energy lost climbing is equal to the energy gained falling we may have a way of approximating the high point from time?  Would this be anywhere near the mid point? Maybe we could use this as an easy way to get tech stuffs 'trajectory midpoint listener'   Does the splash method, when one can't think of a term make it up, work?  We could test it using visual triangulation, maybe even throw more than one rock on the same cast.  If we can get even half decent trajectory profiles this way it will be very useful when we start on the next stage and are trying to place the origin of individual sound waves in time and space.  Even though this applies to longer casts a short range target being hit hard is only something in the way of a gland that wanted to go further so we may have something which eliminates the need for a third, probably high, mic to get curve ( 3d stage )  later on.

nice, big post.

nicely put paragraphs, easy to read.


results nowhere to be found.



man, what's the point of just telling us: it woked! , and not telling us the estimated speed?

tnx. not for bragging purpouses, but just for an idea about what general speed are we talking to, and to see how larde differences do we have here.

I don't want to bring you guys down but numbers and equations don't really show what a person can do with one. For example when someone asks questions about slinging, I seem to lose there interest a lot faster when trying to explain the speed and range of the weapon in terms of feet per second. They always find it easier to uderstand when I say that I can easily clear a football field. Or how I can cut off inch round tree branches at forty yards. We should start posting images of the targets we use and the damage done to them. That would be the easiest thing to understand. The only problem is that we would all have to admit how long we slung stones at that target before we actually hit it.  Thats the problem, speed, power and distance are nothing but fun without accuarcy.

The way to post video's is still to send them to Chris at <info@slinging.org>
Maybe if the files are rather big, it might be better to contact Chris before sending.
When Chris has uploaded them to the site you can use the url he will give you to make a link in your post.

If you do not want to wait that long you can also use a free video site, like youtube, but remember that those video's disappear after a while. So better send to Chris anyway.

Willeke