[Bored chemist]

I'm sure that both of us have sat in an exam or schoolroom and made calculations assuming free fall conditions (Knowing that if we tried to "show off" and include it, we would get the wrong answer) without asphyxia.

Why would it be different now?

. Youngsters may have seen experiments in free fall where the ambient air was also in free fall, in planes and spacecraft, and some pensioners will recall seeing a hammer and feather in free fall towards the moon.

I imagine if you dropped a feather at the edge of a tall build g it would immediatley rise due to the upward air effects.

Like a stopped clock, even Petrochemicals is occasionally right, and I think this may be one of them.

[alancalverd]

If my memory serves me, it's called "departure from rubric",
I wonder how often you called it into play (presumably unknowingly).

Once, knowingly, during a viva.  The examiner got very interested, the exam overran, and we ended up with a publication.

[alancalverd]

As for air blowing up the side of a tall building, what goes up must come down, so whether the feather rises or falls depends on the wind direction. Large birds and skilled glider pilots are very good at soaring on the windward side but the air downwind is best avoided: there's a turbulent "rotor" close to the structure and possibly a smooth downdraft a little  further back. The smooth wave can often be detected at 5 times the height of the obstruction. 

Anyway, if we drop an egg it will take about 3 seconds to reach the prof's head in vacuo (the ambient, not the prof's head). If we use a small egg, with a large surface/mass ratio, and real air, we might be looking at 5 seconds fall time, which could result in a considerable lateral displacement if there is any wind. The gentlest of breezes (1 m/s, 2 mph) would pretty well guarantee a miss first time. Which is why it takes 6 months to turn a competent marksman into a reliable sniper. 

[hamdani yusuf]

The answer could be quantized if this statement is replaced with walking toward the building (assuming there's an open door to go through).

Huh?

I don't think "quantized" is the right word.
But it could be made into a more sensible maths problem by making that assumption.

Perhaps the word "quantified" is more appropriate here.

[Bored chemist]

Throw lots of eggs, observe how each one falls and correct for the extent by which you miss.
There's not much the prof can do about it until he gets into the building, or escapes beyond your reach.

That's why the military always like "the high ground".
Beware of professors with umbrellas or mobile phones.

[alancalverd]

Stories of long sniper kills mostly have a maximum of 3 shots - the target tends to get suspicious after the second one. To quote James Bond: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

So set yourself up with an anemometer and wind vane (physics) rather than a bucket of eggs (engineering). Add a stopwatch if you are using small eggs.

And don't presume that the professor is male - you can get into serious trouble for using the word "he" these  days.

[Bored chemist]

And don't presume that the professor is male - you can get into serious trouble for using the word "he" these  days.

I didn't "assume" it; I deduced it from.
"Your physics professor, who is 1.80 tall".
I'm not saying that's a perfect proof, but it gave me enough evidence to call it on the balance of probabilities.

Stories of long sniper kills mostly...

... are irrelevant if you are effectively using a machine gun.

[Bored chemist]

To quote James Bond: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

It was said to Bond, not by him.

[alancalverd]

If you are using a machine gun, you don't usually

observe how each one falls

[Bored chemist]

If you are using a machine gun, you don't usually

observe how each one falls

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracer_ammunition

[syhprum]

The equations that Alan quotes are a good approximation for bodies falling a few hundred meters but would only be accurate if the Earth was flat and of infinite extent.
As the distance from the centre of the Earth increases the force of gravity falls off otherwise the bodies would tend to acquire infinite energy !
These equations caused me considerably confusion when they were first foisted on me at school but I know better now   

[Bored chemist]

The equations that Alan quotes are a good approximation for bodies falling a few hundred meters but would only be accurate if the Earth was flat and of infinite extent.
As the distance from the centre of the Earth increases the force of gravity falls off otherwise the bodies would tend to acquire infinite energy !
These equations caused me considerably confusion when they were first foisted on me at school but I know better now   

was Jules Verne  your physics teacher?

[alancalverd]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracer_ammunition

So 1 in 5 eggs should have a magnesium shell. I'll have a chat with the chickens.

[alancalverd]

The equations that Alan quotes are a good approximation for bodies falling a few hundred meters but would only be accurate if the Earth was flat and of infinite extent.

No, they are absolute mathematical definitions, nothing to do with gravitation or any other aspect of practical physics. It happens that at 0 - 42m potential difference from the surface of the earth, a = g = constant to a very close approximation.

[Bored chemist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracer_ammunition

So 1 in 5 eggs should have a magnesium shell. I'll have a chat with the chickens.

Good luck with getting them to deliver the eggs at about the speed of sound.

[alancalverd]

Tracer shells are not manufactured by a process that would cause them to ignite in the factory.

You should visit a farm sometime: chickens don't actually squeeze pickled eggs out of their backsides, but you can control various aspects of the egg by breeding and feeding.