Paintball Spin Physics - Getting to the final Answer

[Paladin]

Originally posted by AGD
BJ,

So if we interpret the data correctly the ball "S" curved in flight. This is not consistent with a ball knocked off course at launch.

We are getting better lets stick to it.

AGD

Since the ball seems to have a rotation to the right, it makes sense that it would have "S" curved in flight even if it had gotten a little "kick" to the left as it exited the barrel. Based on the orientation of the seem of the ball to the line of flight, as seen in test #1:01 any muzzle blast could easily move it to the left a bit and then allow the rotation to move it back to the right.

[Paladin]

Originally posted by ezrunner
When fired by a human, all shot groups are a donut. The shooter
with the smallest donut wins.

Observationally, paint behaves the same, this is due to the
natural mechanics of the body.

Question: AGD/Tom.. or Glenn,

"Does a paintball marker, when held in a fixed mechanism, exhibit
this same tendency, or is there a pattern grouping that is somewhat
uniform over a reasonably large sample set?"

-rob

Yes, shooting from a firm and fixed hold on the barrel generates doughnut shaped shot patterns. The less spin the ball has when it enters the air stream, the smaller the doughnut.
If the balls leave the barrel with the seem either directly in line with or directly across the line of flight, the shot pattern tends to be more lineal in nature.

[Paladin]

For starters; I think that the reason that my powdered barrel tests showed different results than what seems to be expected is that I was doing the tests using CO2 and not compressed air. The higher density CO2 has much different propulsion characteristics. When I did the same tests using compressed air and with the same regulator settings, the velocity went down about 10% and the streaks in the powder did not indicate a full perimeter wipe. What it did demonstrate was that there was less upset to the ball and the width of the marks narrowed back down to thin lines quicker than when using CO2. Lost a few points in velocity consistency as well.
Now, it has been said here that compressed air is a "better" propellent for paintballs but I'm going to need someone to prove that to me.

Also:
"Originally posted by AGD

If a barrel did it's job perfectly every time and 100% of the spread was due to external forces then it would be a waste of time to try and improve it. "

I seem to recall that this was predicated on the consideration of barrels that are "sized and honed to perfection" but I cannot see that "perfection" has yet been defined in the context of this thread. Are we assuming that a straight bore of any given size, with an absolute mirror finish is perfect for launching paintballs ? What if something else apears to yeild better results? Certainly, there are several other factors besides bore size, finish and length involved in giving a paintball its best opportunity to go where it is aimed.

Again from AGD
"Importantly we see it overcoming the slower spin WHILE THE BALL IS IN FLIGHT. This is the next point of debate so I will start. If the X force happened in the barrel or say a foot from it, then the spin no matter how small should affect the flight path in a direction consistent with the axis of rotation as it flies down range. To state it another way, if the ball in flight was not being affected by X then spin should be the major factor causing deviation. From another point of view, the force X has to be happening while the ball is in flight because in 114 it pushes the ball in two different directions while its going down range. So in order to argue against this you have to explain how something in the gun or barrel can affect the ball down range as we see in 114. The one thing the barrel can do is impart spin to the ball and that affects it down range but since we have that under control you have to come up with something else. Fire away. "

There is nothing at all mysterious about the forces that act on a paintball in flight. (even though I don't know how to explain it in scientific terms) It is all a matter of how the ball is presented to the airstream and the results of air flow around a not perfectly round object. The only "random" element in the equation is the projectile itself and the speed and direction of the rotation that it is given or allowed to have when in-flight forces take over. A perfectly round ball would be some improvement but makining them heavier to increase on the ballistic coefficient would show greater improvement. "BC" is a calculated description of a projectile's ability to sustain its energy and resist deflection from external forces. A calculation for the BC of a projectile is based on size, shape, weight and velocity. With the factors being established as "multipliers", the variables don't just add up, they multiply up to significant differences in the outcome of the shot. Aero-dynamics is only part of a BC #.(I've got some heavy teflon balls that will litterally drive tacks at 300 fps and higher, when a lighter weight nylon or delrin ball shows very eratic flight patterns at similar velocities.) I've also seen instances where a gun will shoot paintballs very straight at up to -lets say- 280 fps and the size of the shot group will consistently get larger as velocity increases and then at some point in excess of 400 fps the shot pattern decreases sharply again. I think I know what is going on but I haven't the slightest clue of how to write a formula to demonstrate or prove it.

In short, what goes on down range is greatly influenced by what happens inside the barrel as well as shortly after the ball leaves the barrel. A ball spinning slowly while in flight seems to be subject to a planing effect as the seem and size differential is presented to the air stream at different angles.
Boundry layer and other aero-dynamics stuff applies. At higher rpm's centrifugal forces have to be factored in.

[Paladin]

Originally posted by Paladin
There is nothing at all mysterious about the forces that act on a paintball in flight. (even though I don't know how to explain it in scientific terms)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, now HiTech has labeled it for us but I tend to think of it as an effect rather than a "force". The actual force involed is air pressure and the way it varies around the projectile as the current flow behind the ball "oscilates".

Originally posted by AGD


Glen,

The discussion so far has lead to the knowledge that spin does not correlate to where the ball hits down range.

Well, you have not yet convince me of that. So far, all that I have seen in that regard is an agreement that a high speed spin (like what is generated by the Flatline barrel) will overcome or diminish the effect of "X". There is a large gap between the high speed rotation and no rotation at all that seems to have been overlooked; or in this case, "discounted". I'm quite convinced that the rate of rotation that the ball has when it leaves the barrel does in fact have an effect on the ball in flight but I can only argue my personal observations. In short, the less rotation, the tighter the shot group.

Originally posted by AGD


The fact that the ball changes direction in mid flight indicates that something, "X", is affecting the ball in flight. If you want to say that the barrel is causing this you have to make a reasonable argument on what it is. We all know the barrel can induce spin but this has been discounted in this case study.

I've not said that I think the barrel causes "X"; just that "X" is not the only factor involved in the flight of the ball.
Certainly "X" affects a ball in flight but the properties of the ball and its movement after the gun is done with it have an influence on the magnitude of the force created by "X". That is what I was eluding to when I mentioned having followed various objects in freefall and had the opportunity to witness first hand and close up, the variable effects of air flow over an object.

Originally posted by AGD
Your claim of seam problems is discounted because shooting round nylon balls of the same weight shows no improvement in accuracy.

The seam itself is far less of an influence than the not -round shape that influences the shape and frequency of the wake behind the ball. Pressure builds and falls in varying degrees relative to the shape of the object and the speed of its rotation. In freefall, "X" apears to have more influence on the line of flight of a true sphere than on something like a paintball and rigid objects are affected differently than flexible ones are.

Originally posted by AGD

We were proceeding down a path that was getting somewhere but we seemed to have stalled as we got closer to the truth.

AGD

Actually, I'm still not sure just where it is we are going with this.
What is it that the truth is going to conclude ?

[Paladin]

Originally posted by hitech
Glenn,
are you aware of the phenomenon know as vortex shedding or the von Karman Vortex Street? I believe this is the major problem with paintball accuracy. It causes an oscillating wake behind a cylinder (or sphere). Here is an example of that wake:

Yes, in fact I am aware of and somewhat familiar with the phenomenon. I just didn't know the name for it or even how to describe what I do know about it. I learned much about objects in flight about 30 years ago, while trying to follow or catch things in freefall at velocities very similar to firing paintballs. Alas, I have only emperical obsevations to work with.

[Paladin]

Originally posted by hitech
Glenn,
are you aware of the phenomenon know as vortex shedding or the von Karman Vortex Street? I believe this is the major problem with paintball accuracy. It causes an oscillating wake behind a cylinder (or sphere). Here is an example of that wake:

Yes, in fact I am aware of and somewhat familiar with the phenomenon. I just didn't know the name for it or even how to describe what I do know about it. I learned much about objects in flight about 30 years ago, while trying to follow or catch things in freefall at velocities very similar to firing paintballs. Alas, I have only emperical obsevations to work with but I believe that the more stable the object is when flight begins, the less drastic the results of the oscillating wake/vortex.

[Paladin]

Originally posted by hitech
Glenn,
are you aware of the phenomenon know as vortex shedding or the von Karman Vortex Street? I believe this is the major problem with paintball accuracy. It causes an oscillating wake behind a cylinder (or sphere). Here is an example of that wake:

In the attached images, what does the "R=xx" reference indicate ??

[Paladin]

Certainly, the pressure variables from a random shedding vortex is one element of the actual flight of a paintball but I think that to conclude that it is the only element involved in the size of the shot pattern on target, is really a stretch. If the hardware played no role in the event, it must then follow that any device or combination of hardware fired at the same velocities with the same batch of paint should show essentially identical shot groupings (in terms of the size of the shot group), but that is not the type of results that I've seen.
It seems to me that the calculations of the results of a single effect on a rigid sphere should not be held as the last word in predicting the flight path of a flexible and not so round projectile like a paintball. Since a paintball in flight can present both round and elliptical shapes to the airstream and at varying "angles of attack", it apears that the pressure variables in the vortex become much less random. The hardware can affect the status of the ball (relative to shape and rotation) when it enters the air stream; which in turn will influence the results or magnitude of other forces that act on the ball in flight.

[ES13Raven]

Originally posted by AGD
Ok back to the battle,
Glenn, I am purposely leaving the valving air blast thing out of this becasue it's one of the things on the table to be examined at the end.

Time to examine this yet?

[ES13Raven]

That definitely looks like it would cause the ball to "S" curve....

[ES13Raven]

The barrel can make your shot more accurate by keeping the velocity more consistant with the proper paint/barrel match.....

[Rowdie]

The barrel can make your shot more accurate by keeping the velocity more consistant with the proper paint/barrel match.....

As far as I can tell that's not correct.

Everyone's familure with the blow test? The proper ball to barrel fit means the ball won't roll out but you can blow it out. Well near as I can tell barrels that are too tight according to the blow test actually have the most consistant speed. However, barrels that are of the correct fit, while varying more widely speed wise end up being more accurate.

....

This thread is incredible! I've been reading/studying/contemplating it for two days now.

[Lurker27]

Guess I'll throw my hat in.

I believe that this thread is part of the search for the most accurate shot. Accuracy, of course, means going where you shoot it. Consistency is also important, and not only with regard to velocity

Lets review a few things I believe about paintballs.

They vary in size.

Seam position varies from shot to shot and is effectively random.

Seams are a constant and vary in size.

They expand around .001-.002 due to acceleration (Palmer found similar results)

At least a significant portion of their fill (boundary layer adhering to the shell, perhaps) spins when spin is imparted via the shell.

The only thing that the gun has yet to control with regard to paintball accuracy is spin.

The problem with accuracy comes in the last one.in general the tight barrel match eliminates spin, which only gets us to a certain level of accuracy. A non spinning imperfect sphere...this sounds familiar...it's a knuckle ball. The seams will create vortices behind the m, which will pull the ball in random directions (the original orientation of the spin was random)

So, it's fair to say that paintballs have a built in inaccuracy as long as we use this kind of barrel.

The solution wold seem to be rifling, but a rifled barrel reall should only be able to effectively shoot balls in the range of expansion, .001-.002 within the spec of the barrel.


Rifling would een out all of the vortices, would it not? IIRC the English Baker rifle used spherical bullets in a rifle.

[hitech]

Rifling would even out all of the vortices, would it not?

No, I do not think that it would. The vortices are not due to the seams, but due to the shape of the paintball (sphere). Because of the huge affect the shedding vortices have everything else is not statistically significant. Since this is all based on velocity, the one exception is consistency. The more consistent the more "accurate". However, small variations in velocity are overshadowed by vortex shedding. It boils down to paintball markers are about as accurate they are going to get, given the current projectile and speed limits.

[Lurker27]

I misspoke, what I meant was that the seams induce random spins, which in turn generate small, uncertain magnus forces.

The vortex shedding itself has an oscillatory nature, and so, on average, cancels itself out. I mentioned the Baker rifle before, and I feel that the comparison still holds...spherical ammunition beig improved by rifling.

http://project.seas.gwu.edu/~fsagmae...A_Apr_2002.pdf

http://project.seas.gwu.edu/~fsagmae...AA-99-3806.pdf

Two excellent papers relevant to our discussion...The most important thing to note is the assertio that the mean force from vortex shedding will always be nonzero, but in general approaches zero.

I personally dont believe us to be at the very threshold of paintball accuracy yet.

[ES13Raven]

I think the average is about 3.2 grams.....

Some paintballs weigh A LOT less. RPS Lightning weighs 2.5 grams

Here are some weights I have found so far:

Inferno--3.27g
JT--3.19g
Flash--3.23g
Direct Hit--3.26g
PMI--3.21g
Marbalizer--3.25g
Lightning--2.56g (Now RPS Mercury)
Big Ball--3.18g
All Star--3.23g
All Star Yellow--3.14g
Evil Marbs--3.22g
Great American Premium--3.17g

[Pstan]

Gentlemen,

I dont quite know whether my thoughts on this subject will matter to most here........Certainly Mr. Kaye can move this post or delete it as he sees fit, but I would like to join the general discussion having read this post in it's entirety. I come from a background beginning in firearms that has spanned around 20 years now and have been involved with paintball for around 4 years. I am a tinkerer by nature, as my Grandfather and Father were trained as Watchmakers and Jewelers. I hold a MA in History and Education, but have taken courses in every conceivable field, so all of the mathematical jargon here is not totally foreign language to me. However, dont ask me to calculate anything........if I need that done I'll go a to a friend of mine who was a Professor of Mathematics at Georgia Tech University and is now retired.

What I see here are basically 2 lines of thought. One believes that mathematics can describe the relationship of accuracy in 2 different types of paintball guns that cycle differently conclusively. In other words......numbers dont lie. The other group seems to fall into a category that doesnt quite refute that claim, but has misgivings that calculations on paper disprove what they have seen through experience, observation, and personal knowledge. And, in order not to leave anyone out, there are positions here that represent views from both. However, I think the first 2 groups make up the majority.

There are a few points to consider within both groups. First, Mathematics does not prove, or disprove everything that exhists. Einstein proved mathematically that the universe is finite. Other scholars have proved mathematically that the universe is ever-growing and constantly expanding. Who is correct in that argument? Are the numbers lying in one case and not the other? Second, as I look above me everyday I notice that the Sun is moving around the Earth. At night I notice that the Moon is always following my car everywhere I drive. Are my observations of heavenly motion correct simply because I literally see it that way? Or is that really what is going on? Point being, what is seen isnt always what is true.

Whether all of you realize it or not, most seem to be camped out with your respective group and unwilling to do what seems to me to be the optimum thing. That optimim thing is to do another test and start the argument over in a debate where everybody has the same data. Whether one side wins or not ( ie Closed-Bolt v Open-Bolt ) is a moot point to me, but it would be interesting to see the findings in a joint effort.

What do I propose?
1. 2 markers should be constructed. Basically billet aluminum in a stacked tube config.
2. 1 open bolt........1 closed bolt.
3. 1 barrel to be used on both.
4. Both should drilled and tapped for a mounting braket to be used in the test firing.
5. Both should be tested with the same power source and regulating system at the same pressure.
6. Only ammo that is "perfect" should be used......I seem to remember talk of a paint that constitutes this variable being created at AGD? ie not real paint, but of perfect roundness and constant weight.
7. And lastly, all the dimensions of the 2 markers should be the same.......inside and out. Ball position at moment of firing, length, and so on..... of course the closed will need pnuematics mounted and the open will need a valve that provides the gas to recock. Other than those variances, the guns will be the same.


Might this not lead to a better conclusion?

Hopefully, I've not offended anyone. Certainly that has not been my intent. Is this an area that is an acceptable course for this debate to go?


Respectfully,

Pstan

[Pstan]

Essentially, what I've seen in the last few posts from Mr. Kaye relates what I was saying in my original post above. There is so much bias in this discussion that it renders moving forward an unlikely event.

The original question was whether a closed-bolt marker was more accurate than an open-bolt marker. Why I ask is the debate raging over other variables? From my perspective, it is simply the bias everyone is bringing with them. The original question has not been answered.

I proposed a new set of tests with 2 new shooting platforms that removed as many variables as I could think of in the short time I wrote the article. If others can think of more we need to remove feel free to add them. The new shooting platforms remove the bias that one brand of gun is better. The same air system removes the bias that how the platforms are given power affects the test. And so on......until we come to the only variance in the 2 being the type of actuation.

Run the test at that point. Answer the question at hand. Then post the results. Data will be available at that point. After doing that, the variables can be added back to the test until verifiable proof of what actually effects accuracy can be attained.

Lastly, science does not become accepted science until it is published, poked, prodded, redone, refuted, and/or ultimately proven. The scholarly world works in private, and speaks in public.......until that is done on this issue debate will rage.

Respectfully,

Pstan

[eric1337]

i think the key to range is putting as much fill in the paintball as possible so that the fill does not fly to the back of the ball and make it decelerate so terefore less fill travel inside of the sphereequals more range and less deceleration i think from playing ping pong that when the ball starts spinning faster then the ball is moving forward then the spin takes over and grips the atmosphere also if u had a deadball wind would affect it with horizontal spin affecting the trajectorie the trajectorie is more likely to be strait in windy conditions a bit of topspin would likely provefor the most accuracy ping pong balls show u how spin affects trajectorie very well i recommend if agd does spin testing they use orange ping pong balls because there medium wait and have exposed seems

half of this is prbly spelled wrong i have a grade eight education lol

[Rokudon]

uuhhhh, i have very limited knowlege, and doubt i should be posting on deep blue, but in the beginning, it was talk about the seams creating a minor magnus effect (and btw, any terms i mite use r from wat i read) that was previously believed to have an effect on accuracy... well, now there's talk about the vortex shredding, and then about oscillation cancelling out the effect. so.. i was wondering if it were possible to add intentional seams along the ball to create oscillation, or create more turbulence (to minimize the vorticies)? and to keep it in the right orientation, create a weight bias to the back of the ball so it would revert itself to the right direction while inflight? feel free to flame me, i'm just bored with a ton of grd 10 ecology hwk... and btw eric1337, u mite b in grd 8, but the use of periods was probably introduced aliitle earlier in ur education....?

[captainsarcastic]

uuhhhh, i have very limited knowlege, and doubt i should be posting on deep blue, but in the beginning, it was talk about the seams creating a minor magnus effect (and btw, any terms i mite use r from wat i read) that was previously believed to have an effect on accuracy... well, now there's talk about the vortex shredding, and then about oscillation cancelling out the effect. so.. i was wondering if it were possible to add intentional seams along the ball to create oscillation, or create more turbulence (to minimize the vorticies)? and to keep it in the right orientation, create a weight bias to the back of the ball so it would revert itself to the right direction while inflight? feel free to flame me, i'm just bored with a ton of grd 10 ecology hwk... and btw eric1337, u mite b in grd 8, but the use of periods was probably introduced aliitle earlier in ur education....?

This has been tried in several variations. First, look at tippmans flatline system. These never were very successful in breaking into the open market. Flatline cockers were as close as it got and I have never seen one at a field. Imperial also tried to promote consistent spin with the Undertow bolts. I have owned two bolts and have had good success with both. Whether or not it is superior to a traditional venturi bolt however is another matter. It is also hard to compare to say a NDZ bolt (for impulses) owning to what I perceive as a lesser manufacturing standard of IPB bolts from their high degree of hand craftsmanship.

[Rokudon]

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.

[Pstan]

Might I propose someone take a look into the varying ballistic coefficients of paintballs as the mysterious "X" force.


Considering what Mr. Kaye posted above on Force "X", let's look at paintballs. Paintballs have a terrible BC. Might we also say that the BC of every paintball fired is different from the next because of their inconsistant nature. So far, unless handloaded, we cant control the orientation of every round that enters and exits the gun. Might not the Force "X" be the minute diffences in the BC of each and every ball fired? And might not the fact that even Nylon paint has bad accuracy be a result of the poor BC of paintballs in general? If you have a really good Paint/Barrel match flyers still occur. Possibly due to the fact that the tip/width/tail of every projectile fired is minutely different from the last or the next? The Flatline would override this as it imparts the hard spin along a verticle line that overcomes the BC and changes trajectory? Fill on the ball would do so also as it induced a spin?

A few sites on BC that might make more sense....

http://www.chuckhawks.com/bc.htm

From Mr. Hawks...
"Ballistic Coefficient (BC) is basically a measure of how streamlined a bullet is; that is, how well it cuts through the air. Mathematically, it is the ratio of a bullet's sectional density to its coefficient of form. Ballistic Coefficient is essentially a measure of air drag. The higher the number the less drag, and the more efficiently the bullet cuts through the air. So for purposes of flying through the air efficiently, the bigger the BC number the better.

BC is what determines trajectory and wind drift, other factors (velocity among them) being equal. BC changes with the shape of the bullet and the speed at which the bullet is traveling, while sectional density does not. Spitzer, which means pointed, is a more efficient shape than a round nose or a flat point. At the other end of the bullet, a boat tail (or tapered heel) reduces drag compared to a flat base. Both increase the BC of a bullet."



http://www.aeroballisticsonline.com/ballistics/bc1.html


http://www.uslink.net/~tom1/calcbc/calcbc.htm



This may be completely off the wall and entirely wrong, but it's the best a feeble mind like mine can come up with. And, I do realize that paintballs and bullets may be an "Apples and Oranges" comparison, but BC is what describes the change in the shape of projectiles over the years in firearms. I think someone did mention that the firearms world solved this problem long ago, or something to that effect.


Respecfully,

Pstan

[confedman75]

hmm does the walk about worst or better with thicker fill?(im guessing better). we should try like a powder ball, but not too fine since some people would have a horrible time breathing if they got hit in the mouth(throught the mask). how about a fill thats like a damp flour? muddy but not dusty.

[confedman75]

whats the hypothesis, and conclusion? I am realy not in the mood to read 7 pages of posts.

[yeahthatsme]

if somebody would send me a rifled and straight bore barrel and a way to secure a marker so that it wont move when fired i would be perfectly willing to test the grouping differences between rifled and straight bore. i would use an automag with a max-flo air tank. so if i can get the stuff i will do the test.....

[bryan]

I dont know much about the magnus effect, but i do know that a knuckleball goes crazy in flight. Assuming that a nylon ball was not spinning at all, would it not act in the same way as a knuckleball? How much did the nylon ball spin while in flight compared to a regular paintball. If the spin is comparable then i may be way off but i would think that a nylon ball with no seam would not have as much spin as a paintball with dimples/flatspots/seams.

[bryan]

I would tend to say that the oilyness/condition of the surface of the paintball, except in extreme cases, has little to do with the issue since nylon balls, which hopefully were not greasy, did not show any improvement over a normal, oily paintball. However, making a nylon ball that had one half of it rough, and the other a mirror finish could prove interesting. I think that oily spots in the barrel could definitely have an affect on accuracy. My best analogy is bowling. When you bowl the first half of the lane is slick, and oiled, but when it reaches the other half of the lane, the ball curves in whatever direction you spun it. Thats how the pro bowlers get those cool looking hooks on their balls. Testing for that in a barrel should be easy since you could simply wash a barrel really well, or blow some oil through it after oiling a gun.

[flanders]

paintball seems are a good thing, in some ways

fallowing the 2 pionts on barrel to kepe the ball on target is a good thing the ball is stabalized while letting the right amount of air past not to cause blow back

as for airpoctes they allow a ball to not be so birrtal it pops in teh gun, while not makeing a shell even harder, if a bakl infact has no spin forward or back then the airpocet won't matter if it's facing backwards, or if it's roatating at a constant rate so tat it's never forward back up down etc then it will be ok do to compensation

barrel do ahve something to do with accurac, not lengthj ( i dun know if theres a barrel to big or 2 small) but quality, if they are rifled to much and the ball has spin goes pop, if the barrel has burs pop, if the barrel is to big, bouncy bouncy pop bad accuracy, if the barrel aint supper clean pop, if the barrel has odd porting can cause poor release of air causing spin, to tight air can't get through in the right way or ball gets stuck or shell peels off

the ball can distort with high pressure bursts but it would have a reverse translation (as in all liquid filled objects) impact on oen side creats lump on other side this may or may not be a good thing (depending on spin) if spin occurs left or right ball witll be good havign a bullet effect, if ball spins up or down bad ball is lopided pops or screws it up more

as for spin not hapening with liquid, if there was no air pocets then the ball would be hard like a solid object or atleast it doesn't impact or adjust every thign is filled, ball still spins, if there is an air pocket, and the liquid can still move then yes will cause lopsided pickle ball spin. but if the buble does not move it creats a weighted zone creating a similer odd spin, if spin occurs

General hypothesis

If spin lateral spin (left to right)occurs then one or many of the factros will effect accuracy

If spin longitudanal spin (up and down)occurs then one or many of the factros will effect accuracy

[flanders]

california why?

*turns around with blunt object in hand*