Hammerhead barrels, and their lies!

[frop]

I guess some people just weren't given as much to work with as the rest of us.

Why can't Darwin work any faster?

[TheTramp]

Then the Tramp posts:

When did I put any bench test up against my crono statement? Did this guy even read my crono statement? Is he consistantly off in left field?

[Evil Bob]

That is clearly false, unless he thinks every barrel has some sort of anti-paintball energy field preventing a paintball from touching the side of a barrel.

Yes, there is something that prevents the ball from hitting the larger bore, its called "projectile exit velocity vs barrel transversal velocity". At 300fps, the ball is traveling around 200 miles per hour, how fast would a player need to be moving their arms to snap out and actually have a paintball strike the larger inner bore while firing? At 200 mph, how long is the paintball actually in the barrel and how big of a window of opportunity do we have to move the barrel sufficiently to make contact with the larger bore? Also keep in mind that the player is trying to hit a target with the final movement of the barrel to be aligned to the target, so there isn't going to be a great deal of speed in the transversal movement while the player is actually shooting at the target.

Would be cool to get one of those lexan barrels for testing such a hypothesis.

That is easily proven wrong by actually firing two tone paint out of your gun and observing the spin on the ball. Besides, I've never seen the video he is referring to, so I have no opinion on that video.

Quite correct, the paintballs do spin, but not uniformly, the spinning is random based upon the location of the seams as the ball makes contact with the control bore on its journy through the barrel and its introduction to the outside environment. The only barrel system that has been able to uniformly spin the ball in the same direction is the Tippman "banana barrel" Flatline. The Z frame comes close, but its not been able to spin the balls as consistantly as the flatline does.

Scoring the paintball does not have to be significant for it to break better than a non-scored paintball. Pulling a number out of thin air, if a paintball shell is 2 millimeters thick and the rifled barrel imparts a bank of scratches that are .2 millimeter thick on the shell, then it will break easier than a non-scored paintball. Also, Apparently, Tom's research states that there is no SIGNIFICANT benefit to rifling. Does that mean there is some minor benefit? Like a less random spin to the paintball as it exits the barrel? Who knows...

There very well may be something here worth looking into.

Typically the ball, in a smooth bore barrel, will only contact the barrel at two points, usually where the ball's seam is the widest. This is where actual rifled barrels may present some benefit as there appears to be more points of contact as the ball travels through the control bore. I'd definitely like to see some testing on this theory.

Its very possible that 3 or more points of contact in the control bore will lessen spining like the magnetic top on the dual wire handle that alot of us kids in the 60's had. Its also highly possible that even a minute ammount of spining will help reduce the floating drag points on the rear of the ball as it travels toward the target. A variance of as little of 5 fps can mean a difference of missing by several inches at the intended point of impact, so it would be desireable to reduce/lessen the floating drag variable if possible.

The artical at AGP (the link was posted above) was very interesting to read through, everyone here please take the time to go through it, they present some interesting data regarding rifled barrels that may very well be worth investigating further.

-Evil Bob

[Miscue]

Geez... Run off to Dallas for a few days...

Let's review:

Miscue posted:


That is clearly false, unless he thinks every barrel has some sort of anti-paintball energy field preventing a paintball from touching the side of a barrel.

You keep bringing this up and I do not understand why. Let's pretend that what I said is false. What does it imply? The ball can bounce around the barrel, yet the "rifling" can still achieve consist spin and such (which is questionable regardless)?

I omitted the possibility of the ball touching "a" side because it is ridiculous to acknowledge that the ball bounces around AND the rifling "works..." I'm surprised that you are trying to point out something to be "wrong," when if so implies something that hurts your case.

You can take what I said absolutely literally, and try to poke at something that was not what I had in mind - if you feel you've triumphed in some way by doing so, good for you. However, if you are talking about rifling - it is silly to consider the incidental contact that you are pointing out... as the way it is designed to work. How can that be? What I meant by "contact" was not this, although I agree there was some ambiguity. I was talking about a tongue-in-mouth "kiss," not a peck on the cheek "kiss." What I said was clear enough for a reasonable person to understand what I was getting at.

[Target Practice]

The point I'm making is that all of you "scientific" know-it-alls had to intentionally lie or misrepresent your case at various times, as quoted above.

I never misrepresented anything. It's not my fault you seemingly don't understand straight fact.

[hitech]

The article at AGP (the link was posted above) was very interesting to read through, everyone here please take the time to go through it, they present some interesting data regarding rifled barrels that may very well be worth investigating further.

I'd like to see some of his data. Regardless, 40 shots is hardly statistically significant. And that would invalidate his conclusions. However, IF he could get lots and lots of other people to gather the same data and they all came up with the same results it would begin to be statistically significant. But he is going to need a whole lot of people to even match TKs testing. And that testing had far different results.

[Mike Smith]

You do realize {from the APG article}:

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."

Obviously a PE is not qualified to test paintball barrels..., Right boys?

[Vex]

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."

It doesn't mean he knows how to make a paintball barrel. He should have studied up on it before comparing them to real guns, where rifiling actually works.
I guess if he were shooting snack crackers out of his barrels, we'd all have to duck for cover because they'd be super accurate and break on target at 75 yards

I suppose that Tom Kaye's professional credentials in the worlds of engineering and paintball don't mean squat, do they?

[Jack & Coke]

I am a registered Professional Engineer with the State of California.

In my Professional Opinion, he's full of it!

(regarding the idea that his "rifled" paintball barrels = longer distance and more accuracy)

[Target Practice]

You do realize {from the APG article}:

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."

Obviously a PE is not qualified to test paintball barrels..., Right boys?

He's the president of the goddamn marketing group. He does technical writing and marketing.

So, no, he is absolutely not qualified to test paintball barrels, boy.

[Miscue]

You do realize {from the APG article}:

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."

Obviously a PE is not qualified to test paintball barrels..., Right boys?

What does it matter what his "qualifications" are? It just means he has less of an excuse to be a tool!

[magman007]

mike, give it up, all you are doing is bringing down everyone elses view of what you are trying to create for yourself of a reputation. you are clearly wrong. When some one takes a barrel, revolves it to the same speed as the rifiling would have on the ball, shoots photos throgh the lexan barrel at high speed, and shows the exit of the ball and how it was uniformly not effected, you must realize that you are refutably wrong. If rifiling truely did work, why doesnt everyone own one of these barrels? wouldnt tournament teams be using these to get a larger gain on another team?

Why arent armson barrels flying off the shelves? how about the hammerhead? why arent people using these if they are that much better?

why havnt other companies, who put alot of r&d into their barrels use this technique? why didnt this technique prove to be effective in 2 private tests?

I can tell that you are missinterpreting the words of tom, where he states that it has no major effect on the ball. By this he means, that it has no measurable effect or gain, there fore, no reason to use a rifled barrel.

Tom was one of the great innovators in the sport, if he found it had any gain vs. any thing else on the market, he would have implimented it, look at the marker designs and decide for yourself if he would have implimented the design.

Obviously, this Professional Engineer is making a farce out of his School, and im sure if they heard what he was claiming to be true, they would revoke his diplomas,

How about this fact? a paintball will fly just fine out of a large bore barrel, it will even fly fine out of a piece if pvc piping, with no measurable difference.

Ask simon stevens (aka manike) whom is certifiably a smarter man then the creator of these barrels, whom also designs and works for national paintball supply ( invarably one of the largest companies in the sport, also with the deepest pockets to make their markers have any inconcievable advantage over other markers) has done this pvc barrel test. and concluded that bore size is more of an efficiency issue than it is an accuracy issue.


Your theory to disprove my theory about the glass with water is once again, proven wrong. there are many variables in the reason that the color is displaced, the fact of dropping the liquid color into another liquid automatically causes it to disperse, not to mention the fact that there are imperfections in the glass, and the fact that you cannot rotate the glass perfectly and evenly, especially for one full revolution.

There are imperfections in paint shells, as well, but with the ball traveling at much higher speeds than you can rotate the glass, you must agree that the core of the liquid is not rotating, therefore, only the shell and some minute amount of fill is rotating.

heres an even better example for you. Our earths core. our earth rotates remarkably fast, yet the core, sourrounded by liquid magma, stays for the most part still, it only actually rotates every 120 years or so, relative to the earths spinning. why is that? same reason.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...arth-core.html (berkely information about the earths core)

you may discredit me as another tk nut swinger, this is not the case. I do not use his products any more, i do not claim his word to be the word of god, but i do know when i can reasonably look at the evidence presented, and the testing completed, that i can get the same result through deductive reasoning, that it is correct.


Mike, you just want to believe something, and you have been proven wrong, more times than once in this thread, please conduct the tests, and prove them to us. that is the only way we will even give you a shred of credibility.


any one remember arkfear trying to tell us that cockers shot farther? or were more accurate?
ah the good ol days.


Chalk up your "belief" to be purely psychological. There are people invariably smarter than you, and the creator of this barrel system ( whom worked in food service? how does that make you a certifiable genious on paintball barrels, never the less aerodynamics?) in this industry whom have conducted far more testing then you can even dream of, and proven this to not be the case?

Also, i will have you know, that i am currently a student enrolled at Kansas State University, in the professional pilot program, with 2 physics classes and 3 aerodynamics classes under my belt already, i believe i have a firm stronghold on the properties of projectiles in flight.

thanks, but please, try again.

[Mike Smith]

I find this entire thread hilarious. Each and every one of you nay-sayers have locked minds and will not tolerrate a different point of view. Most of you think TK is god and his "research" is written in stone. This is amusing....

For specific mis-information:

Your theory to disprove my theory about the glass with water is once again, proven wrong.

No it wasn't magman007. In fact, all anyone has to do is put a drop of color in a glass and spin it. The water, aided by the color, clearly rotates in the direction of the spin. So much for your "vaulted" education. And I'll chalk this up as another intentional mis-representation.

And Berkeley? You're quoting Berkeley? The same nuthouse in California that encourages and elevates mindless civil disobedience? The drug-infested lunatic fringe of colleges? That's funny!

So, no, he is absolutely not qualified to test paintball barrels, boy.

Taking your "logic" further, Target Pracice, TK is not qualified to test any barrels cuz he was the President of AGD. Yea... a stupid premise, isn't it...boy.

I suppose that Tom Kaye's professional credentials in the worlds of engineering and paintball don't mean squat, do they?

So phaseshifter, in your world if "A" is correct, then "B" cannot be correct, aye? IOW, If Robert is correct, then Tom MUST be incorrect, in your world....

Whatever.

In my Professional Opinion, he's full of it!

Oddly enough, Jack and Coke has the most coherant response. He didn't "color" his opinion with false or misleading information.

[Lohman446]

Mike, lets say this. If he wanted to, with those credentials, he could release a well written report complete with quantitative analysis on testing as to why his barrel works. He could show us the proof. Anyone seen that report?

[shartley]