Proof that an autococker shoots further?

[strongboy2005]

Originally posted by spantol
I don't believe that this is correct. Once the ball leaves one set of conditions (the confines of the barrel, and the associated friction and whatnot) and moves into another (open air), this no longer holds. This is a much more complicated situation than simply tossing a ball up in the air.

Consider what happens when a ball leaves a barrel after accelerating at rate A and immediately encounters a brick wall. Clearly, the rate of deceleration in this case is far, far greater than the original rate of acceleration. Different conditions exist inside and outside of the barrel, leading to this discrepency.

Ultimately the atmoshopere in the barrel and outside the barrel are the same. Wind factors are the only difference. Atmospheric pressure applies to anything that is directly exposed to the air. In your brick wall example the paintball is going from little to no friction to an instant stop. When the paintball leaves the barrel under ordinary circumstances it does not hit anything with a different density/pressure than that it encountered inside the barrel.

[spantol]

Strongboy, Gravity; Gravity, Strongboy.

Now that the introductions are out of the way...

Re-read my post. I'm speaking of strictly horizontal motion. Gravity acts on the ball as well, vertically, eventually stopping it. You've also got a force acting on the ball in the direction opposite to the motion of the ball due to air friction, but that's not goint to make much of a difference for our discussion here.

Originally posted by strongboy2005

So A=F/M ? If the F = 0 then the A = 0. This actually proves an entirely different point. This proves that once a paintball is fired the ball continues the same velocity that it left the barrel. Essentially this shows that once a paintball is fired it will never stop. EVER. OK so now we can all dispell this argument and move on to the next.

[spantol]

Actually, there's quite a big pressure difference inside the barrel, behind the paintball. This is why they sting a bit when they hit you. :)

Originally posted by strongboy2005

Ultimately the atmoshopere in the barrel and outside the barrel are the same. Wind factors are the only difference. Atmospheric pressure applies to anything that is directly exposed to the air. In your brick wall example the paintball is going from little to no friction to an instant stop. When the paintball leaves the barrel under ordinary circumstances it does not hit anything with a different density/pressure than that it encountered inside the barrel.

[strongboy2005]

Originally posted by spantol
Strongboy, Gravity; Gravity, Strongboy.

Now that the introductions are out of the way...

Re-read my post. I'm speaking of strictly horizontal motion. Gravity acts on the ball as well, vertically, eventually stopping it. You've also got a force acting on the ball in the direction opposite to the motion of the ball due to air friction, but that's not goint to make much of a difference for our discussion here.

gravity does not affect horizontal movement, so it is not a factor in this discussion. If you drop a bullet at the same time you fire a gun, both bullets will hit the ground at the same time (on a flat plane of course). That is why this doesn't affect the discussion.

[strongboy2005]

Originally posted by spantol
Actually, there's quite a big pressure difference inside the barrel, behind the paintball. This is why they sting a bit when they hit you. :)

Actually I was referring to the atmospheric pressure in the barrel and the outside air in front of the ball. That is the air that is going to provide the ball's friction.

[spantol]

Gravity has a huge effect on horizontal movement--eventually, it prevents it. In the last round, you tried to use my F=MA argument to show that a fired paintball never stops (reductio ad absurdum, for those playing along at home), and I pointed out that the vertical movement from gravity stops the ball. This is the only reason gravity was brought up.

Originally posted by strongboy2005

gravity does not affect horizontal movement, so it is not a factor in this discussion. If you drop a bullet at the same time you fire a gun, both bullets will hit the ground at the same time (on a flat plane of course). That is why this doesn't affect the discussion.

[spantol]

Beautiful. So inside the barrel, you're dealing with friction due to atmospheric pressure and the ball's contact with the barrel itself, and outside the barrel you're dealing with friction due to atmospheric pressure alone? Or are we ignoring the barrel-related friction for now?

I'm just looking for clarification of your argument here, not trying to make a point.

Originally posted by strongboy2005

Actually I was referring to the atmospheric pressure in the barrel and the outside air in front of the ball. That is the air that is going to provide the ball's friction.

[strongboy2005]

Originally posted by spantol
Gravity has a huge effect on horizontal movement--eventually, it prevents it. In the last round, you tried to use my F=MA argument to show that a fired paintball never stops (reductio ad absurdum, for those playing along at home), and I pointed out that the vertical movement from gravity stops the ball. This is the only reason gravity was brought up.

oh sorry I thought you understood that I was being sarcastic. of course eventually gravity always will pull the ball to the ground, but from point A to point B in the air gravity does not affect the horizontal movement. Of course when the ball slams into the ground horizontal movement will be affected.

[strongboy2005]

Originally posted by spantol
Beautiful. So inside the barrel, you're dealing with friction due to atmospheric pressure and the ball's contact with the barrel itself, and outside the barrel you're dealing with friction due to atmospheric pressure alone? Or are we ignoring the barrel-related friction for now?

I'm just looking for clarification of your argument here, not trying to make a point.

well actually I'm saying the friction of the barrel is greater than the friction it experiences when it leaves the barrel. Inside the barrel you deal with the atomospheric pressure, friction of the ball and barrel, and gravity (gravity pulls the ball down into the barrel). Outside the barrel you lose the friction of the barrel and the gravity (gravity is still there, but it is just pulling down, not offering horizontal friction until the ball hits the ground) and you gain wind resistance, which is less than the direct scraping in the barrel, and maintaining the same atmospheric pressure.

[joeyjoe367]

I don't even see a "percieved" longer-range. Even if it did have longer range, it would probably be so subtle and stupid, it wouldn't matter.

Acceleration outside the barrel is fallacy.

[agdemagman69]

There are two reasons why everyone thinks cockers shoot further:

1.THEY WOULDNT BE POPULAR IF PEOPLE DIDNT THINK THEY WERE MORE ACCURATE! This is hype made up by cocker owners and cocker manufacturers to make you buy their gun.
Think about it, what advantages does a 500$ cocker have over a 500$ electro? NONE! There a pain in the butt to fix/maintain, they have to be timed and every little piece on them breaks easily(oh and they can leak from about 50 places), their limited to 12.6 bps, which means their slower than electros... it goes on
other companies have hype too

2.lol my theory is that it just seems like their shooting farther cause of that damn back block...it mystifies people. you know how many newbies see a guy with a cocker at their field, and say i want that guy on my team! he must be good cause his guns does that awesome thing block moving thing and makes that awesome air swooshing noise.

and as a side note:
I honestly think they wouldnt sell half as many cockers if they didnt have a back block.

just my .025 cents

[spantol]

The sarcasm was understood, but the purpose of the sarcasm probably wasn't. I was assuming that you were taking my application of Newton's Second Law, and trying to show that in this case, it leads to a contradictory if not outright stupid conclusion (through sarcasm), thereby proving that this application wasn't truly applicable--reducing my argument to absurdity. I like to refer to this technique as proof by contradiction with an attitude. It's all kinds of fun.

Originally posted by strongboy2005

oh sorry I thought you understood that I was being sarcastic. of course eventually gravity always will pull the ball to the ground, but from point A to point B in the air gravity does not affect the horizontal movement. Of course when the ball slams into the ground horizontal movement will be affected.

[strongboy2005]

I don't want your .025 cents if you're just going to try to turn this into a cocker vs mag war. If you are ignorant in the subject of physics, save us the pleasure of hearing your stupid posts for when we give a crap. This has moved beyond the question of which gun shoots furthur, simple tests could prove which one could win in that test, but we have moved into an argument on the affect acceleration has on a paintball after it leaves the barrel. Maybe a paintball doesn't accelerate after it leaves the barrel, but I believe that different situations/variations could slightly affect the decelleration of the ball therefore affecting the speed and moving on to the distance the paintball travels, not only that but it also will show that the paintball that decelerates slower would be more effective (ie the ball breaking) at the longer distances.

[strongboy2005]

Oh BTW that last message wasn't directed to you spantol, you and I are having a civilized argument.

[spantol]

Okay, so when the ball leaves the barrel, it loses some of the decelerating influences (the barrel friction, essentially)? And you're positing that this translates into an increase in acceleration?

I would offer that while the first part of that may hold, the ball also loses its accelerating force when it leaves the barrel. Any decelerating forces are now acting on an object with an acceleration of zero. This would result in deceleration out of the barrel, rather than acceleration, which seems to be what most of us have observed.

Originally posted by strongboy2005

well actually I'm saying the friction of the barrel is greater than the friction it experiences when it leaves the barrel. Inside the barrel you deal with the atomospheric pressure, friction of the ball and barrel, and gravity (gravity pulls the ball down into the barrel). Outside the barrel you lose the friction of the barrel and the gravity (gravity is still there, but it is just pulling down, not offering horizontal friction until the ball hits the ground) and you gain wind resistance, which is less than the direct scraping in the barrel, and maintaining the same atmospheric pressure.