Freaks not what they claim to be?

[rudy]

when they say the ball is almost entirely accelerated they are saying it is not entirely accelerated. I guess the question really is how much are we loosing cutting off our acceleration. OK anyone with a multiple bore barrel system (WE NEED SEVERAL DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO DO THIS) grab that and some paint. try to match the multi bore system to a 1 peice barrel you might have tell all the specs of what you did and dont touch the velocity. but get a reading of about 20 or so balls through each barrel. and record all the velocities and post them here. I am pretty sure you will find on average a 1 peice 14 inches down to 8 inches is going to result in higher velocity IE more acceleration. Of course I could be wrong but I think most people here would agree with that.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by rudy
I am pretty sure you will find on average a 1 peice 14 inches down to 8 inches is going to result in higher velocity IE more acceleration

That goes completely against logic. As long as there is force against the Paintball, it will accelerate and the velocity will increase.

Now unless the barrel is so long that there is no longer any air pressure behind the ball and the ball is being decelerated by friction with the barrel, shortening the barrel and changing nothing else on the gun will result in a LOWER velocity and much louder BANG.

[Coaster]

Finding the effective barrel length for an automag can be found with mathematics. I will be able to calculate this if somebody can tell me the volume of the airchamber(in cubic inches).

also,what happens first? the PB leaves the barrel or, the bolt moves back into the ready position.

[rudy]

SlartyBartFast you have completely misinterpreted my statement I was saying that anything down to an 8 inch barrel will be more efficient then a 2 peice with 4 - 6 inchest of tight bore back. not that a 8 inch barrel will result in higher velocity then a 14 inch barrel. even though it could depending on where the porting starts, and the friction of the barrel surface. also the only reason I did not say all 1 peice barrels is cause after a point the barrel is slowing the ball down so I woul expect a 20 inch barrel would result in a lower velocity then a 10 inch barrel. Of course all this depending on the gun used barrel surface and porting

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by rudy
SlartyBartFast you have completely misinterpreted my statement I was saying that anything down to an 8 inch barrel will be more efficient then a 2 peice with 4 - 6 inchest of tight bore back. not that a 8 inch barrel will result in higher velocity then a 14 inch barrel. even though it could depending on where the porting starts, and the friction of the barrel surface. also the only reason I did not say all 1 peice barrels is cause after a point the barrel is slowing the ball down so I woul expect a 20 inch barrel would result in a lower velocity then a 10 inch barrel. Of course all this depending on the gun used barrel surface and porting

Okay, I agree with you completely then .
The wording wasn't terribly clear so please forgive my misunderstandingof your intentions.

Also, like most Pball discussions we're all starting to change terms and mix the discussion.

For the same overall length of barrel I believe that a 2-piece compared with a one-piece honed barrel (same bore over whole length) will result in:

1- lower accuracy (ball bounce at end of barrel)
2- lower effieciency (when shooting at same velocities)
3- lower velocity (when shooting with the same settings as for one-piece)

So, do we agree rudy?
(looking at your other posts in this thread it's bad that I didn't pay more attention and realise we were on the same wavelength here. )

[rudy]

yep I agree with 2 and 3 but I have no idea if 1 is right or not I think I will go try and figure that out now. some people say that ball never touches the front, others say it somehow guides the ball. and some say it bounces around. ill have to figure that onw out.

[rabidchihauhau]

TWO PIECE BARRELS

If you want to end the theoretical discussion and put theory to practice - get the Armson SSR - the rear half/breech half is a full EIGHT inches in length and can be (and has been) used as a short (and loud) barrel all by itself.

The SSR system was designed based on all of the best current theories which flow from the best available testing. The breech end is 8 inches in length so that your paint has finished the powered portion of its travel while still in the same tube. The polygonal STRAIGHT rifling provides a better seal on the ball - on average - than smoothbores.

Front ends are ported to reduce sound - not for any other reason. Rifling is present to provide a better chance of a seal - not for creating spin.

[SlartyBartFast]

Re: TWO PIECE BARRELS

Originally posted by rabidchihauhau
Front ends are ported to reduce sound

Well, you've certainly got you facts straighter than a number of paintball players.

Any testing available on the Armson straight 'rifling'? I'd still like to see atest that would conclusively show how the ball is affected when it passes from a tight bore back end to a big bore front end.

But, instead of a two-piece why not just get an 11" tight bore one-piece barrel with a minimum of porting so that effective length is within the 10" optimum efficiency for a Mag (I believe that is what Tom Kaye has stated)?

[rabidchihauhau]

armson ssr

the bore in both halves is the same.

you're welcome to test.

I have personal experience with a 10" unported barrel on mags for nearly a decade and I agree that - at least for me and my current (and long time) set up, its the best. I have replsced a J&J 10" brass, striaght rifled, .689 id barrel (that I used for 8 years!!! - and which amazed other players with its - ugliness and accuracy) with an 11" SSR (effectively 10") and would NOT have replaced the J&J with anything not equal to it.

Yes, I work at Pro-Team, but think about that: I WORK at Pro-Team and had a J&J on my tournament gun. NOW I have an SSR.

One gun, one guy, maybe biased (I think not, check the history) but its at least based on reality.

[rabidchihauhau]

Barrel history

Below are excerpts from US Patent #

The complete text and drawings for just about any patent (US) can be found by visiting www.uspto.gov, selecting patent and using the search functions there.



"It is therefore an object of the present invention to stabilize the spin on a paintball for improving the accuracy of the paintball shot. It is a further object to improve long distance accuracy of paintball shots and also to increase the percentage of paintballs which break on impact. It is a still further object of the invention to permit the escape of moisture build-up in the paintball gun barrel and to lower the noise created by the paintball shot."

In developing my invention, I proceeded in the following steps. First, I determined to relieve the air column that precedes the ball during the shot and to relieve the excess CO.sub.2 gas following the ball to ease the entry of the ball from the muzzle 16 into the atmosphere. To do this, I tried drilling apertures in various sizes and patterns along the barrel 12.

there needed to be a length of the barrel from the breech towards the muzzle which had no holes for a minimum of 3 inches and preferably 6 inches or more; and (5) it was most important that the area of all the apertures exceeded the area of the front of the muzzle to quickly relieve the air column in front of the ball. In fact, my best results occurred when the combined area of all the apertures exceeded the area of the muzzle opening by approximately three times


Second, I tried to achieve greater accuracy by putting modestly controlled spin on the paintball. To achieve this I placed the apertures in a helical pattern described later in this application and found that with two helixes at 180.degree. to each other, my results improved. I further angled all the apertures described hereinafter and found that the helical patterns in combination with the angled apertures caused the expelling jets of air and gas to put a controlled spin on the air and gas columns that in turn influence the paintball. I thus further improved the accuracy and distance of the shot.

In the area of the barrel 12 from the choke to the first aperture, I honed the barrel to a first diameter, and from there to the muzzle 16, I honed to a second diameter larger than the first. These three stages of barrel diameters had a dramatic effect. The first stage centered the paintball and started the ball accurately. The second and third stages provided an air cushion, and the third stage provided the gentle spinning air column which was imparted to the paintball. The net results of these various steps were a startling improvement in the accuracy and distance of the paintball.


In theory, when the paintball is accelerated in a closed atmosphere such as a barrel, it pushes the entrapped air ahead of it thereby creating a pressure field higher than the surrounding atmosphere; the ejection process becomes somewhat similar to a jet exhausting against a flat plate normal to the jet stream; a condition that creates great turbulence at the mouth of the jet in this case the muzzle of the barrel.

On the pressure side of the ball, the pressure field is incrementally reduced as the air is forced out through the apertures, thus reducing the resistance to paintball acceleration and also creating a smaller differential pressure between the ball and the atmosphere with less turbulence prevailing. As previously mentioned, the apertures are drilled at an angle and this combined with the double helix pattern causes the gas column to rotate incrementally along the spiral (Volute Action) resulting in some ball rotation. Any rotation of the ball will cause rotation of the fluid (paint) inside the ball thus bringing the center of gravity more in line with the ball's central axis, a condition which would reduce wobbling. Also when the ball enters the atmosphere with some rotation a more quiescent entry occurs.

[rudy]

The SSR system was designed based on all of the best current theories which flow from the best available testing. The breech end is 8 inches in length so that your paint has finished the powered portion of its travel while still in the same tube. The polygonal STRAIGHT rifling provides a better seal on the ball - on average - than smoothbores.

Where are all the tests for this BTW they arent theories if they just flow from test they are just a hypothosis which needs its own test to make it a theory. I am particularly interested in why you have claimed this to be a better seal on a ball then smooth bores. also does this barrel come in more then ne more size?

I thus further improved the accuracy and distance of the shot.

The net results of these various steps were a startling improvement in the accuracy and distance of the paintball.

You claim a increase in accuracy but I would like to see the actual results and how exactly the testing was done. believe it or not just about every barrel company claims the same thing OUR barrel = more ACCURATE. so how is this claim any different then the next company.

Also when the ball enters the atmosphere with some rotation a more quiescent entry occurs.

once again I would like some proof that it is any more quiescent then other common barrels.

actually your should probably break down that whole previous post cause its full of claims but little to none of them are backed by real research that I am aware of. I would like to see some shot paterns with different alterations on a barrel and some high speed video showing the balls consistently spinning for starters.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by rabidchihauhau
"It is therefore an object of the present invention to stabilize the spin on a paintball for improving the accuracy of the paintball shot. It is a further object to improve long distance accuracy of paintball shots and also to increase the percentage of paintballs which break on impact. It is a still further object of the invention to permit the escape of moisture build-up in the paintball gun barrel and to lower the noise created by the paintball shot."

Without further proof, I will contend that the only the last claim is absolutely true. Looking at Patents remember a few important points, the claims do not have to be true and the patent can claim absolutely anything. Additionally, normally a patent is loosely worded in order to encompass the largest possible exclusion area with regards to similar or competing products.

The rest of the patent text from smart parts is unprovable as no patent agent ever tests whether the 'invention' works and often even whether the invention is really patentable. You can patent perpetual motion machines if you want to pay the approx. 3000 $US filing fees. Even if all the laws of physics say they are impossible. Usually you just prove that you've done a search and nobody else has patented the idea and that nobody currently markets a similar product. It is then up to you to pig headedly defend you patent against all infringements and for others who contest the patent to challenge to defend themselves in court if they believe that the patent is without grounds.

All the claims are unsubstantiated and I would like to see any evidence that any of the claims are true. Venting the pressure before the ball and releasing the excess after is all rubbish, but it does make for a quiet barrel .

Believe the claims if you want, but the only person to ever test ball spin and report on it was Tom Kaye and AGD. Tom spun a barrel at thousands of rpm and still didn't come up with improvements in accuracy. Claims of inducing or stabilizing spin are just Marketing Hype until proven with repeated test data. I find it unlikely that differences in pressure for a fraction of a second will induce spin and the other contender ARMSON is unlikely to straighten travel unless the rifling actually digs into the shell. But given a tight bore barrel, I give the ARMSON more chance of actually living up to claims as I would believe that the paintball should experience equal pressure around its circumference which may indeed stop spin.

Smart Parts Patent would have been better filed as an industrial design: "2 helical lines of port holes at the end of a barrel". Seeing as they haven't put any of the numerous other barrel makers with ported/vented barrels out of business by trying to enforce the patent might just say a lot about how the claims would stand up in court.

PS: Rudy, be careful because it looks like you've misquoted and attributed two different posts and sets of claims to the same person.

PPS: This discussion should be moved BACK to Deep Blue or perhaps even better should be proposed in the new Technical Round Table forum.

PPPS: We've certainly strayed from the original question haven't we.

[rabidchihauhau]

armson barrels

Please do not confuse the patent claims from the spiral ported barrel patent with advertising and testing claims made for Armson barrels.

Some asked how the polygonal rifling provides a better seal. The shaping and spacing of the rifling conforms in a greater number of cases to the out-of-round shape of most paintballs.

One test that amply demonstrates a better seal - provided you do your measurements properly, is to use the same paint with a smoothbore of the same length and with an armson. You will find that your velocity averages will increase with the armson. Better seal is not the only reason why this might be, but it is a very good candidate in the vast majority of situations.

IF paint were perfectly spherical, a smoothbore with a perfectly circular cross section would be the ideal shape to seal completely. Since paint is not spherical, a slightly different shape - in the case of Armson barrels a polygonal surface - does the job better.

Once again, someone also seems to be confused and thinks that the rifling in an armson barrel is there to induce spin. It is not.

[rudy]

why bother even posting all that patent junk? I guess im not even sure what your reasoning was for quoting large portions of a patent now.

anyhow you are going to have to explain to me better how a polygon is going to make a tighter fit to a somewhat spherical ball then a barrel with a circular bore. If the fit is tighter to me it only means that you make your barrel bore smaller. Which would explain why I often here people complain of breaking paint as it enters the barrel from the stealth barrel. (correct me if the ssr is totally different I have not reccomended anyone buy an armson barrel after expirence with the stealth) The only possible way I can see the fit as being tighter (I wont say better) on average is if the polygonal rifling allows for some play in the ball size because one that would be to tight for the barrel could be squashed in because of the fact it has some extra space to squeeze into since the barrel is not perfectly round. on the other hand My friend with a armson stealth claims bad efficiency which could be because while the barrel is tight, it still has plenty of space for air to escape around the ball. and just might be a little to tight.

the bore in both halves is the same.

if the bore is the same in both halves why even make a 2 piece barrel? unless i misinterpreted that. Your are refering the the ssr barrel right?

[SSMercury]

The reason this shouldn't be tossed back into the Round Table forum is that this is a debate on the validity of a 2 step bore barrel system affecting accuracy. (Any questions on this?) However, as I make it, Tom created the Round Table forum to have some people independently test marketer's claims and post here, then have other forum people beat the crap out of the findings or agree with them, by doing there OWN testing supporting or not supporting the results. So marketer claims X, person A tests, says marketer is full of it, people B,C,D,...,n argue yay nay and test, and hopefully someone's ideas change.

Anyways, the reason this shouldn't be moved is that this is a debate in theory, as I don't see anyone stepping up to test this as would be done in Round Table forum. (Don't ask me to, a 150-200 dollar BARREL set to use just for TESTING is out of my league financially. BTW, I'm in it for the 1 bore barrels, siding with the "ball bouncing in XXX-large bore step decreases accuracy' people. But that's just me) If you want it moved, start a new thread in Round Table saying you intend to test this, yay or nay, and do so, and post info. (BTW, it's a good idea to read the forum for ideas on making your results stand to a heated debate, and...weeelllll, this is a heated topic, better put on flame retardant suits. )