mcarterbrown.com  

Ask The Experts You ask the tough questions

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-21-2010, 01:05 AM   #121 (permalink)
Banned
 
alpha434's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cockerpunk View Post
righto

its gonna be accurate, when you aim the exit vector at it, its going to shoot the ball straight to it.

really dude, what is the point?

EDIT : oh your making another stupid assumption.

a 3 inch diameter barrel means you can easily change the exit vector by moving the power pulse and the ball around, to get the ball to fly weird directions (like i alluded to earlier). but if you use the ball placed in the same place, and a power supply that doesn't move and is consistent, then the exit vector will be similar enough to make the barrel moot.

again.
What testing did you guys do to prove THIS theory?
alpha434 is offline  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:09 AM   #122 (permalink)
Not Popular
 
Cockerpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006

same initial conditions: same forces in flight: same accuracy

not even a test, simple logic. also an assumption i have stated multiple times that the initial conditions (such as spin, something drg isn;t understanding) need to be similar enough to make for accuracy.


EDIT

unless someone who protests my comments can apply the same set of rules as the ones i said them under, then i am done with this thread.


please read my posts, understand them, and then make sure you use the same assumptions i do, then if you still disagree, then you can post.

Last edited by Cockerpunk; 01-21-2010 at 01:14 AM.
Cockerpunk is offline  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:14 AM   #123 (permalink)
drg
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cockerpunk View Post
i already said my statements only are true if you preclude spin changing the air flow around the ball.

your statement directly effects the spin and thus the airflow around it and you cite that as a reason for inaccuracy.

do you see the disconnect?

hell, you made the same mistake back here -

i notice a trend. you are the over-applying what i say, and then your the one getting mad about it.
Lol looking for outs now are we? Notice what I said that in response to, the assertion prior to that, before you added the spin qualification, basically disavowing what you had just posted.

Up to that point you had not acknowledged spin at all, making blanket statement after blanket statement as you usually do. Then you had to qualify, qualify, qualify, step back, step back, step back.

Furthermore spin is just a possible secondary factor I cited above. The exit vector itself will be inconsistent in a barrel that large if for no other reasons than inconsistent ball location and undirected propellant force.

I had already called you out on directionality long before your qualifications.
drg is offline  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:19 AM   #124 (permalink)
Not Popular
 
Cockerpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006

i only have to clarify my position because you are over applying it. i make a statement, and out of nowhere apply it to everything ever. even if it is the scope of the thread, or some scope that only your imagination can limit.

before accusing me of over-applying my data and conclusions: i would first examine your own assumptions going into the thread.

this will clear up more then 95% of this drivel. and i won't have to constantly restate the assumptions i'm operating under.

with that, this thread is over. as are any thread with you drg, you have proven that you do not operate under the rules of science, do not want to operate under them, and refuse to operate under any rules other then your own.
Cockerpunk is offline  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:20 AM   #125 (permalink)
MCB Member
 
Fubarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Richmond, WI
Send a message via AIM to Fubarius Send a message via Yahoo to Fubarius

Brass and Wood Fan
PPS Fan
I believe (or more precisely hypothesize) that at some point of increasing the bore size you'd reach a point where it becomes impossible to have a consistent exit vector, even with making all initial conditions as similar as humanly possible. Visualize the random oscillation of a ping pong ball floating in a jet of air.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Though I won't make any real claims until I get a chance to do some practical testing next spring. I have a few other ideas bouncing around in my head concerning exit vectors, but I want to do a little experimentation and independent verification of previous tests to fine tune the ideas a bit.
__________________
David Johnson
aka Fubarius

Nunquam emere quid potes facere
Fubarius is online now  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:33 AM   #126 (permalink)
drg
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cockerpunk View Post
i only have to clarify my position because you are over applying it. i make a statement, and out of nowhere apply it to everything ever. even if it is the scope of the thread, or some scope that only your imagination can limit.
No, you clarify because you made an overgeneralization and now need to pull back from it. Your now-hyperqualified assertions propose such a narrow set of conditions that they are unrealistic; the conditions in the two posited situations would obviously be different -- that's the point. You claim to do testing for the real world and I apply the same standard.

To use fubarius' posited hypothesis, the intellectually honest thing to say, if anything, is something like "our testing down to 1" .687 bore (or whatever) was still accurate so I think it would still be accurate" rather than what you say now "no, it will still be just as accurate". One way encourages consideration of the data, the other feigns knowledge and leads to questions about the true extent of your knowldge.
drg is offline  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:36 AM   #127 (permalink)
Seasoned Member
 
bgearing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Frostburg, MD

Quote:
Originally Posted by drg View Post
No, the dichotomy is in fact false. A very simple breakdown is this:
The claimed dichotomy is:
1) People presenting conclusions know something and are altruistic
2) People challenging conclusions know nothing and are malicious

However it is quite possible that

3) People challenging data know something and are altruistic
4) People challinging data know nothing and are altruistic
5) People challenging data know something and are malicious

etc.
It is also possible that they are defense department contractors seeking to hide top secret ballistics knowledge by clouding the issue. Or reptilian aliens bent on taking over the world through gel-cap technology as yet undreamed of by man. The possibilities are endless, but the probabilities are few.

The fact is that a false dichotomy implies that none of these were considered. I have just illustrated that even after considering them, the arguments being put forth demonstrate no such hidden knowledge, and instead make fallacious arguments. Essentially, until some evidence of some hidden knowledge is presented, then any possibility that involves it cannot be reasonably considered to be true, and must be dismissed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drg View Post
Very simple, try not to complicate it. In a way it’s the same trap the science-doers in question fall into when they overstate the results of their data, you can’t be intellectually lazy like that if you’re “doing science.”

All they need to do is acknowledge the limits of what they have in fact tested and ostensibly proven. It's very simple ... For example inclusion of "may" or "as far as we have seen" transforms something probably false into something unassailably true.

For example, we have the case of the 1” barrel... As mentioned earlier in this thread, a 1” barrel that is 3” ID (powered by, say, an explosive propellant) would almost certainly not be as accurate or precise as a 1” barrel in a normal paintball bore powered by a normal paintball firing pulse. With that extreme example in mind, we know that at some upper limit, accuracy would suffer; acknowledgment of that possibility and the fact that the testing in question did not establish a conclusive upper bound is the difference between honest science and scientific showboating (a.k.a. “mythbusting”).
This is an actual argument that can be addressed.

Unfortunately, you confuse sound deduction with 'laziness'. Examining the 1" barrel situation, we first understand that this is a set of conditions which, so far, is utterly untestable because it has not proven practical to shoot a ball from a 1" barrel at a velocity that can be compared to other results.

This does not mean that we cannot draw a conclusion about how this barrel would perform from the testing, assuming that we could actually fire a paintball from that barrel at 300 fps. In order to draw this conclusion, we begin from sound first principles and infer the most likely outcome.

We derive sound first principles from mathematical analysis of the barrel testing results. As no published data disproves these results, they remain unchallenged until such time as further testing refutes the data. Nothing short of a failure to replicate the results by multiple independent testers will call this data into question.

So, we know that in all tested instances, the length of a barrel had no statistically significant effect on accuracy.

We know that in all tested circumstances, the porting of a barrel had no statistically significant effect on accuracy.

We know that in all tested circumstances, not a single physical property of the barrel has any statistically significant effect on accuracy except for those that create backspin.

From this, it is perfectly safe to make inferences as to what an untested, theoretical barrel will do to the flight characteristics of a paintball. Quibbling over whether the conclusion is too strongly worded is nothing but semantics. For all intents and purposes, anyone can simply devise a test to prove the evidence and thus the conclusion incorrect, so it remains a scientifically valid statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by drg View Post
Another perhaps more realistic example is in the case of underboring. Rather than making the blanket statement that "underboring does not cause more breaks," the intellectually and scientifically honest thing to say would be that "underboring at least up to .xxx does not cause more breaks." Because I don't care what you say, if you put a 50 cal barrel on a 68 caliber gun, underboring is GOING to cause more breaks. There is a boundary, absolutely positively for sure. They have not found that boundary so making a blanket claim is an overreach based on the data.
Here, I admit, you're likely correct that there is some lower limit, but the point is still moot.

It would probably, strictly speaking, be more complete to say that "underboring at least up to .xxx does not cause more breaks."

However, it would also be redundant. No existing barrel and paint on the paintball market have such a disparity in bore match that this statement becomes validated. It is entirely valid, scientifically and intellectually, to simply say "underboring does not cause more breaks", because for any combination of paintball and barrel currently produced, it does not. There simply is no existing situation where this statement becomes untrue.

It is no more incorrect to make this statement than it is incorrect to claim that time is a constant when dealing with Newtonian physics. We know perfectly well that Newtonian physics do not work when dealing with very large, very small, or very fast objects. Still, for most practical applications, Relativistic physics are unwieldy and Newtonian physics provide perfectly workable results. In the same way, there is nothing dishonest about making a conclusive statement about the interaction of paintball barrels and paint based only on products that actually exist.

Simplifying a redundant statement is not dishonesty, it is good communication skills. If .50 cal barrels come out and people want to know how underboring by .18 or so will work out for them, then it will become important to add the extra words.
__________________
My Feedback
bgearing is offline  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:42 AM   #128 (permalink)
drg
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgearing View Post
The fact is that a false dichotomy implies that none of these were considered. I have just illustrated that even after considering them, the arguments being put forth demonstrate no such hidden knowledge, and instead make fallacious arguments. Essentially, until some evidence of some hidden knowledge is presented, then any possibility that involves it cannot be reasonably considered to be true, and must be dismissed.
The irony of your reasoning is that once such "hidden knowledge" is presented, the dichotomy becomes truer. It is unnecessary to present the knowledge to render the dichotomy false. I'll tell you now there is no malice in anything i have said, so the dichotomy is hereby false.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgearing View Post
However, it would also be redundant. No existing barrel and paint on the paintball market have such a disparity in bore match that this statement becomes validated. It is entirely valid, scientifically and intellectually, to simply say "underboring does not cause more breaks", because for any combination of paintball and barrel currently produced, it does not. There simply is no existing situation where this statement becomes untrue.
Except maybe ... the example I gave? Not coincidentally; that's why I gave it. And given the relatively rapid changes in the area of barrel and paint sizing in the past few years -- as well as the access to custom machinework in general for paintballers -- such blanket statements are at best risky to make.

Bottom line is what we're seeing here is the same trend we have seen from this group since day 1 ... they are more interested in makin a socially impactful pronouncement than representing the data accurately.

Last edited by drg; 01-21-2010 at 03:56 AM.
drg is offline  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:42 AM   #129 (permalink)
Not Popular
 
Cockerpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006

"underboring at least up to .xxx does not cause more breaks."

that is what we say.

we have only tested to .005 under controlled conditions. only because we have never been able to get a barrel small enough or paint large enough to test anything farther.


drg, you are still just making assumptions and thinking that anything said applies to every set of conditions. IT DOESN'T. it operates under the conditions under which it was stated.

EDIT - don't believe me? over a year ago - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYHA8yiLEQ4

Last edited by Cockerpunk; 01-21-2010 at 01:47 AM.
Cockerpunk is offline  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:43 AM   #130 (permalink)
Old gear!
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dallas

CP, I appreciate how you dismissed my attempt at a civil disagreement as 'baseless' and 'babbling'.

Quote:
no, its acutally nothing like that. no where have we ever said tighter is always better, quite the opposite really. and we know that shorter barrels don't effect accuracy because we know what does effect accuracy. we also never said porting is a moot endeavor.
Consistently, you've said tighter is better. Underboring has been your flagship for how long now? And shorter barrels don't affect accuracy, WITHIN the limits of your tests. Between the 5" barrel and the 18" barrel, length does not affect accuracy.

You're an engineer, right? Ever mess with op-amps, and hit a 'saturation point'? Ever reach a 'terminal velocity'? Ever see a population growth model? In nature, in physics, in science, in all things really, there is a limit to which a trend holds. Did you ever consider a 1" barrel is beyond this limit, just maybe?

With regards to my 'baseless claims'- Bryce, thanks for being more polite about it, noting that the human eye/brain are easily fooled, instead of dismissing it offhand. Gordon, to me they're not baseless. I took a BL Protege, tucked into a compact shooting stance (plenty rigid for my rifle work, equally so for paintball I'd assume), and tried out both with and without the barrel front, at a target at a fixed distance. The spread grew much more quickly without the ported front on my barrel in rapid fire... slow fire, the full length, ported barrel still had a slight edge, that could be called statistical noise. Whether it was the length or porting, I don't know, but as I mentioned before, 8" unported vs 14" unported on my Bushmaster has no affect on anything, so I figured it was the porting.

Now, with regards to my 'babble'- I was telling you to avoid identifying with your testing so strongly you failed to apply common sense, in favor of your desired results. That whole 'conflict of interests' thing. Seems you missed that part.

So try out some common sense. Figure there might be a reason barrels are longer than 1". Try to determine if every company in existence decided to port their barrels on a whim, or if it might improve flight characteristics. Most of all, try to be open-minded.

And throw that lovely term 'vortex shedding' - it actually relates to why I think both a longer barrel and porting help accuracy. Flow around a sphere is always asymmetrical, except at very low velocities. Asymmetrical flow causes an oblique force on the sphere. An oblique force pushes it off its intended path. Now imagine for a second you are shooting your mystical, 1", unported barrel- where does all that wasted gas go? Around the sphere, faster than the sphere. Vortex shedding occurs, in FRONT of the paintball, and screws the accuracy. Now imagine we have a poorly tuned gun, that STILL has excess gas in the barrel, 10" down the line. If we have no porting when the barrel ends, where does that gas go? Around the ball, creating a vortex in front of it. Porting releases this gas before the end of the barrel, before the ball is 'free', to prevent the vortex from forming. It also alleviates pressure in front of the ball as it pushes towards the muzzle.

In theory, of course.

Chew it over. Try it out. Maybe use smoke and some high-speed photography as your next bit of awesome. But stop extrapolating results from an 18" barrel and a 5" barrel to a 1" barrel.
flyweightnate is offline  
Closed Thread

  mcarterbrown.com » Paintball » Ask The Experts

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC