Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 321

Thread: Paintball Spin Physics - Getting to the final Answer

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    163
    yes i know about the flatlines, what i meant was i have limited physics knowlege, i know enough about paintball (i've been researching and such for 2 years....mostly on low ends and pumpers tho) to know what products do what. the things you mention are used to create spin, and due to the spin, it would create lift and keep the ball along a straight trajectory. what i''m saying is create seams on the ball and have the back of the ball heavier than the front. conventional loaders and equipment would still work, the seams would disrupt SOME of the vortex shedding effect, and the weight bias will keep the seams facing the right direction.

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokudon
    what i''m saying is create seams on the ball and have the back of the ball heavier than the front. conventional loaders and equipment would still work, the seams would disrupt SOME of the vortex shedding effect, and the weight bias will keep the seams facing the right direction.
    I think you've got your weight distribution backwards. In your configuration, the paintball is unstable and will want to rotate until the weight is biased toward the front. Do a search for "stability", "center of gravity", and "center of pressure". For a stable projectile, you want its center of pressure to be aft of its center of gravity. Your configuration has the positions of the two centers reversed.

    BJJB

    [edit... I couldn't type "positions" properly the first time through... doh!]

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    163
    lol right, i just remembered that when i thought of the M16 bullet... ya you're right, front heavy makes better stability.. but would the powder mix with the liquid...? wait isnt this suposed ot be spin physics...

  4. #244
    First, let me say that Hitech is the guy that directed me over to this thread...and I'm glad he did. I'm a History major so all this math stuff is making my head hurt (we're just not built for this) but lucky for me I was always good at science and have a natural drive to figure out how things work (hence how I learned computers and programming...go figure).

    Anyway, and perhaps I have this all wrong, but if I'm reading this right the ONLY way the marker, bolt system, and barrel affect a paintball's accuracy is by how consistant of a velocity the marker will fire the ball out of the barrel. After that it is up to these vortexes that look like something out of a piccaso painting that determine where the end result winds up. (other than where I'm pointing it of course)

    So the next question is with current paintball technology what makes some balls work better than others when fired out of a marker? Why did I have such poor shots with say marbs when comparied to chronic? (And a bore size of .691) I mean, I've seen the difference. Does it have to do with a mis-shapped ball will produce more of these vortexes on one side than another and thus push the shot further off the mark?

    As for combating this effect...I wait to see what you guys come up with. I have my own ideas...but I'm not paintball scientist.

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    163
    (welcome to AO? 1 post and joined in november...)
    - yes, thats what it basically says. after the gun, nothing impacts it except vortecies. also, ithe gun matters in terms of consistent pressure shot to shot.
    - to my understanding (i'm a grade 10 student with barely any phisics knowlege) a dimple will cause turbulence, reducing the vortecies on that side? someone please correct me if i'm wrong.
    - to the ball patterns, did you test that with one batch, or with multiple batches? you have to remmeber that form batch to batch, the balls are different. also include shelf life, and machining tolerances.
    -to combat this, scroll up abit, u'l see an earlier post of mine

  6. #246
    Correct. First time poster here and new to this forum. It was a reference to this thread on another forum that brought me here.

    As for my wild paint chase...I've tried each brand at different times and, when possible, bought from different stores. I have seen Chronic to be larger in general than the Marblizers. All I can get from this though...when comparing against this data, is that the Chronic allows for more consistant velocity shot to shot than the Marbs did with the barrel I use. After all, according to this study it seems this is the only area which can affect accuracy within the firing process itself.

    I understand that many of those who started this thread may or may not still be around...after all it was started some time ago, but I want to say thanks. Some of us out here in the paintball world just want to know the facts even if we cannot arrive upon them ourselves. I would never have gotten this information had it not been for you guys and this is the kind of stuff I have been looking for. I don't understand any but very basic physics but this stuff...when you look at it...makes sense even to me. I don't think that the players themselves don't care to know the truth, but rather that they just go by what is readily available in the knowledge pool. Most, myself included, understand that paintballs are not accurate because they are round but what I, and I'm sure others, didn't understand was just to what degree this condition played in the overall scheme of accuracy.

    After reading all this...it is apparent to me that outside the ability of the marker to provide consistant velocity...through a combination of a regulated air source, room for liquid to gas expansion (with CO2), and a quality paint that varies little in size from round to round...that the actual shape of the ball itself and the way it acts in flight is the largest enemy we have when it comes to accuracy. Really it seems that this, above all ELSE, is the cause for inaccuracy. Having an inconsistant marker just serves to agrivate it. Thus, while everyone is looking for the best marker/barrel/firing system to increase accuracy the real place everyone should be focussing their efforts would be on redesigning the paintball.

  7. #247
    were the tests you did with the same barrel? if so that is the reason for the cronics being more consistant than marbs, different sized paint needs different sized barels to properly hold it, as for redesigning the paintball, look at the fn 303, fin stabilized front heavy projectiles, although the front is very heavy, i think the same results could be achieved as long as the front is heavier than the back
    behemoth"......redbull tates like fecal matter......"
    Thordic"do what 14 year olds do. Grope females and have awkward sexual moments."

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    163
    ya wat joshin said, but redesigning the ball in terms for aerodynamics would defeat the point of calling it paintBALL. might as well call it mini paintfootball instead... to keep with the acctual name of our beloved sport true, i'd say weight distribution MIGHT be the next way to go for better accuracy. noe for the people that this has happened to, when the fill settles (only heard of, have never seen) does the ball fly funny? as in inconsistent flight paths? if so, then the weight idea might have to be scrapped, as t may cause more inaccurate shots for just ONE accurate shot

  9. #249
    well the idea i had was making tails like on the fn303 rounds out of a material significantly lighter than the paitnball, then attach the two with glue or something, and im not to sure about the fill settling, i guess it never happened to me

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    163
    yes but the problem would be if you add a tail to it, the function of a hopper is defeated, becase it provides storage an loading of randomly oriented balls (which is the same in any orientation...) add a tail, the hopper cannot be used and conversion to clip based systems is needed. thats why i said manipulating the seams and messing with weight distribution. keeps it in a ball form, so no major changes are needed to paintball equipment.

  11. #251
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokudon
    yes but the problem would be if you add a tail to it, the function of a hopper is defeated...
    So... It just requires new equipment. And, the more accurate the round the less rounds are necessary. I don't see a downside.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokudon
    ...thats why i said manipulating the seams and messing with weight distribution. keeps it in a ball form, so no major changes are needed to paintball equipment.
    The problem is that without INCREASING the velocity or mass (weight), or changing the shape of a paint"ball" you are not going to increase accuracy. Increasing the velocity and mass are out for safety reasons. That only leaves the shape.

  12. #252
    and with a paint ball, the shape of it and poor aerodinamics far outway any increases in performance from weight distribution, both a new shape/tail and prober weight distribution is needed, and as for not bein able to use a hopper, so? the acuracy would mean no naed for high rof

  13. #253
    Actually, why not use a Q-loader? After all, the balls are lined up in the tube and if you have a round that is shapped like the fn303 (http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/ll_303.htm) and loaded them into the Q-pod tail first they should remain in that orientation when loading. Then you would need to redesign your breach/feed neck so that the round approached the breach at an angle almost parallel with the body and from the rear of the marker. The breach would need to be designed in such a way as to "straighten" the round out as it loaded. Maybe something along the lines of how an Evil Omen loads but from there rear not the top.

    The issues we have has to do with increasing weight. You don't want to increase the round's weight too much. Doing so will result in the round carrying more energy when it hits its target. This may prove to be unsafe and in turn make the round unusable. The Fn303 round is a LESS LEATHAL round but it can still injure the target so a direct copy of that round is out of the question.

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Robotech
    Actually, why not use a Q-loader?

    Seems to me someone in another thread already suggested the exact same thing.

    Wonder who that was?

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    163
    ...wow i'm sorry slarty, but that was probably your least helpful post i've ever seen.. anyway, back to the point, most people dont use a Qloader because of the hassle it takes to load it. sure it could probably work, but you would need to redo the loading system for the loader itself.
    ok i cant think anymore... got a projec due 2moro...

  16. #256
    You wouldn't need to redo much. I'm thinking perhaps just a modification (and a slight one at that) of the black rotating disk at the top of the pod. You would need to hand load the feed tube (couldn't use the silo) just because you have to get the round oriented correctly. It is the head of the Q-pod where the slight redesign would need to take place.
    I mean, just how much longer are the Fn303 rounds than a standard paintball? They don't look THAT much longer.

    Also, I would love to find out what improvements were seen during the testing for that round. I understand that one reason they increased the weight to 8 grams was because if it weighed less it did not work as well. However, it would be interesting to know if there was a marked improvement in accuracy and or distance when they used the same shape but on a lighter projectile...say...one that was in the 3 gram range?

  17. #257
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    163
    agreed... Tom, feel like doing some more tests? it would be interesting... and i think hand loading the Qloader would be a porblem because they are spring fed, you'd need something to hold down the pressure.

  18. #258
    I'm sorry that I was unclear. What I meant by hand loading was to put the rounds into the feed tube that go from the Silo to the crank loader for the pods...not hand loading the pods themselves.

    Still...all this is moot if a 3 gram round that looks like the FN round is utterly useless because of weight issues.

  19. #259
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Robotech
    ...all this is moot if a 3 gram round that looks like the FN round is utterly useless because of weight issues.
    I do not believe that it would be useless. I'm sure it would be more accurate. How much more accurate is the big question. And I don't think we are going to find out. I'm pretty sure Tom isn't going to do any more testing (it was too costly the first time around). He probably tested some FN303 like rounds that were not weighted, but I wouldn't count on that information being made public either. And before anyone asks, no, I haven't seen it nor do i know if it even exists.

  20. #260
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    2,940
    Quote Originally Posted by hitech
    He probably tested some FN303 like rounds that were not weighted, but I wouldn't count on that information being made public either.
    Manike tested some nylon FN303 rounds.

  21. #261
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by SlartyBartFast
    Manike tested some nylon FN303 rounds.
    Well, someone get him to post his results! I'd like to see how much difference they made.

    I'm assuing they were not weighted.

  22. #262
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    WWW.INCEPTIONDESIGNS.COM
    Posts
    3,816
    Quote Originally Posted by SlartyBartFast
    Manike tested some nylon FN303 rounds.
    Yep and they sucked 'behind'.

    Not good. At all. Worse than normal balls for accuracy.

  23. #263
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by manike
    Yep and they sucked 'behind'.

    Not good. At all. Worse than normal balls for accuracy.
    Interesting. I wonder why? Could the gun have been releasing too much air and causing the round to tumble? Very strange. I wonder if Tom had the same problem when first designing the FN303 rounds?

    Very odd...

    Oh, thanks for letting us know, and so quickly!

  24. #264
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    WWW.INCEPTIONDESIGNS.COM
    Posts
    3,816
    Quote Originally Posted by hitech
    Interesting. I wonder why? Could the gun have been releasing too much air and causing the round to tumble? Very strange. I wonder if Tom had the same problem when first designing the FN303 rounds?

    Very odd...

    Oh, thanks for letting us know, and so quickly!
    Not weighted. Just solid Nylon all the way through.

    They definitely spin... and gave a similar effect to shooting paintballs after you had broken a ball in the barrel. Not good.

  25. #265
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    4,772
    Quote Originally Posted by manike
    Not weighted. Just solid Nylon all the way through.

    They definitely spin... and gave a similar effect to shooting paintballs after you had broken a ball in the barrel. Not good.
    Did you chrono them? Just curious. It sounds like they were spinning way to fast. At least that is the only thing I can think of. TOM, HELP! You must know...

  26. #266
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    WWW.INCEPTIONDESIGNS.COM
    Posts
    3,816
    Quote Originally Posted by hitech
    Did you chrono them? Just curious. It sounds like they were spinning way to fast. At least that is the only thing I can think of. TOM, HELP! You must know...
    I think I did... 310 FPS IIRC. So a bit fast, but not too much over where we want to be.

    Very similar weight to a paintball. But I can check that again.

  27. #267
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NorCal
    Posts
    4,772
    310 shouldn't be fast enough to be a problem. The only thing I can think of is that they were spinning way to fast. Maybe try some with just a slight twist to the grooves. In your spare time, of course....

  28. #268
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    WWW.INCEPTIONDESIGNS.COM
    Posts
    3,816
    Quote Originally Posted by hitech
    310 shouldn't be fast enough to be a problem. The only thing I can think of is that they were spinning way to fast. Maybe try some with just a slight twist to the grooves. In your spare time, of course....
    I *ahem* borrowed the design from one of Tom's rounds. I figured if he'd already done all the hard work... and they were just for my own personal entertainment, crowd control, lonely winter nights, robber type situations. You know, those times when you just need your own FN303...

  29. #269
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    163
    manike, wat was the twist on the barrel? i'm going by hitech here sayin the spin is too strong. regular rifles need around 1" of twist per 12" of barrel (sniper rounds at least...) but i've seen 1" in 8" i think... or you could try 1" in 85" like the Steyr ACR

  30. #270
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    WWW.INCEPTIONDESIGNS.COM
    Posts
    3,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Rokudon
    manike, wat was the twist on the barrel? i'm going by hitech here sayin the spin is too strong. regular rifles need around 1" of twist per 12" of barrel (sniper rounds at least...) but i've seen 1" in 8" i think... or you could try 1" in 85" like the Steyr ACR
    There is no twist in the barrel. It was a smooth bore barrel. I shot them out of my FN303.

    Some of the fins were slightly 'oversize' and tight in the barrel. They left streak marks down the inside of the barrel... which were perfectly straight (you can still see them in there...) but the rounds in flight would definitely act like they were spinning and fly off in all directions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •