Barrel Testing-Tom?

[Mike Smith]

I'd assume that any company worth their salt enough to come out with such a revolutionary product, one that cheats the laws of physics, would have data beyond "we shot a tree and our groups were smaller" to back up such a huge step forward in PB technology.

Just to keep it honest, I posted the 2" tree branch method of testing. I have absolutely NO ties to Hammerhead, other than I bought a barrel from them after they let me borrow it for a day.

My method of trying out the barrel was not scientific, nor controlled. It was just a real-world test, using my Mag and 3 barrels. I'm convinced that the $110 I paid for the barrel was money well spent.


On a side note, how does a "spinning" paintball magically stop spinning when it leaves the barrel? Centrifical force would keep it spinning until air friction slowed it.

What am I doing??!!??
Never mind... I don't care about the science..... The barrel works for me.

What am I thinking??!!??
Never mind..... Don't buy one.... They don't work.... There's no spoon.... errrr science behind the design... It won't help your game....

[cledford]

Originally posted by Mike Smith
I'd assume that any company worth their salt enough to come out with such a revolutionary product, one that cheats the laws of physics, would have data beyond "we shot a tree and our groups were smaller" to back up such a huge step forward in PB technology.

On a side note, how does a "spinning" paintball magically stop spinning when it leaves the barrel? Centrifical force would keep it spinning until air friction slowed it.

What am I thinking??!!??
Never mind..... Don't buy one.... They don't work.... There's no spoon.... errrr science behind the design... It won't help your game....

The spinning has already been cover above.

About you being convinced about it's value - that's one thing - actively convincing others about it without valid data is another. Sorry to bust your chops, because my issue isn't you specifically - it is everyone. You shoot a tree, think it looks good, decide to believe that it is (entirely your choice) and you $150 investment was a good one, then start sharing your beliefs with others as fact. Then when challenged on it with arguments that go beyond what you "saw", you argue/defend your position against others who say "hmmm - physics show/say that this can't be, so how does it work - if you (or the person who produced it) can't provide a valid explanation that it likely doesn't" you come up with nothing concrete to support your assertions. It is the same throughout our sport. Anyone will claim anything and then those who buy into it support those claims as well - it's a pyramid scheme of people support other peoples claims with out the first bit of real testing. I argue these issues because I hope that at some point people stop blindly believing what they hear and start questioning what they think that they see. Then we'll use valid scientific process to prove or disprove this crap and our sport will actually evolve. Right now no would consider making the tough choice about trading volume of ammo for less but more accurate rounds when they can "keep" both if they buy into the belief of magic tubes that work contrary to established laws of physics and fluid dynamics. So what incentive do manufacturers have to invest in real development when they can do nothing, make bogus claims and reap the same financial rewards?

-Calvin

[AGD]

Links fixed.

spin data

[Gunga]

Originally posted by cledford
The cause an area of low pressure behind the ball (like the one under an aircraft wing) the "caves in" in a random fashion.

Calvin,

While you usually seem to be correct, you've got it backwards in this particlar area. The low pressure area on a wing actually occurs on/over the upper surface.

If you look at an airfoil's crossection, the top is curved while the bottom is flat. As air flows over the wing, the velocity of the air flowing over the curved (top) portion of the wing increases and in turn, pressure decreases (relative to the pressure below the wing). Low pressure on top + higher pressure below = lift. Now if you were talking about racecars and downforce, you'd be right. :)

Originally posted by cledford
The flatline spin does nothing (AFIK) to mitigate that area of low pressure *behind* the ball - so it is no more accurate then a typical PB. The spin (which is actually imparted) also creates an area of LP/lift below the ball which alters is flight path on a vertical axis only.

Again, the low pressure is above the ball, not below. If it were below, the ball (or wing) would be 'sucked' down towards the ground. If a ball isn't spun on a vertical axis (as in a normal barrel)there isn't any extra lift generated in any particular direction (other than the low pressure area/vortex shedding behind the ball which generates drag and ball wandering).

In the case of the Tippmann Flatline barrel, they spin the ball on the vertical axis, spinning it from the bottom up. What this does is increase the effective speed of the airflow over the top of the paintball. This increased airflow velocity increase over the top of the paintball casues a drop in pressure relative to the air below the paintball, creating lift just like in an aircraft wing.

Pressure (and temperature) decrease as a fluid's velocity increases. It's called Bernoulli's Principle. :)

[cledford]

Originally posted by Gunga


Calvin,

While you usually seem to be correct, you've got it backwards in this particlar area. The low pressure area on a wing actually occurs on/over the upper surface.

Doh!!!! I screwed that one up :)

-Calvin

[SLICEnDICE]

Pics

Maybe some pictures would help them understand want happens behind the ball.

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119370