Hammerhead barrels, and their lies!

[billmi]

Did I really just see "written articles for.... Baking and Snack" used to support the credibility of someone's ability to test a paintball ballistics theory? Doesn't mean the testing wasn't good, just seems like an odd way to support the claim that it is.

I don't believe an engineering degree is necessary to do controlled testing, far more important, IMHO is clear publication of what the test was, so the reader can interpret the significance of the results. Tom Kaye may not have an engineering, or astronomy degree, but if I want to measure the red shift of a star, I'd go to him first before some of the lettered astronomers I've met.

And to bust a myth... I've not done any testing to determine the effects of accuracy, or distance caused by axial spin on a paintball. I'd love to, and sure I will at some point (though I have yet to come up with a method that I am satisfied will accuratly and practically measure distance of paintball flight paths.

[billmi]

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)

Why is it, that whenever fill spin vs shell spin is discussed people so readily jump to examples of eggs, glasses of water, and the earth, all of which are of entirely different scales and made of of entirely different materials with different inertial, fluid and drag properties?

When I spin my head, my brain that is floating in liquid CSF spins with my skull!

So what?

Why not look to paintballs themselves.....

Try this - find clear shelled paint (hard to do these days, I tried this with Nelson in 1987.) Build a centerfuge for it that puts the axis of the ball in the center of the spin. I did this with a motor the size of a Speed 280. At 6v, these motors typically reach about 14K RPM. I did this because the paint had settled, and each ball had a small air bubble. I'd hopped to spin the ball, and cause the fill to settle out to the equator using centripetal force, (hey we paid 20 cents a ball at the field then, saving paint in college was a big deal.) Anyhow, not only did I find that I couldn't develop enough force to redistribute the solid pigment of the fill, but I also found that if I braked the centerfuge with a piece of balsa from full speed to 0 rpm in a fraction of a second, that the fill stopped with the ball, in fact it showed no signs of movement at all. If the "fill spins separately from the ball" theory is true, the fill should have kept on whirling around in the shell. It didn't though - despite iced tea, egg yolks and the earth's core spinning seperately from their shells.

I guess that proves that paintballs are more like brains than iced tea. We're shooting "smart" projectiles after all.

[Lohman446]

I don't believe an engineering degree is necessary to do controlled testing, far more important, IMHO is clear publication of what the test was, so the reader can interpret the significance of the results.

And this is why Hammerheads "years of research and development" appears to be near worthless to me. I think they know things they would rather not publish...

[SlartyBartFast]

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....

You sir are a pathetic .

You are either as closed minded as an ultra-orthodox religious type, or simply trolling and arguing for arguments sake.

If you want to discredit the science and physics facts, do so. Otherwise, concentrate on the one or two largly insignificant grade school tricks you do seem comfortable with.

Beleive what you want. It's your brain cells you're wasting.

You blame others for beleiving TK testing, but you provide neither testing of your own or from another source.

So what if the fill spins or doesn't. Spinning paintballs provide NO advantage at 30,000 rpm.

Accurate paint projectiles developed for the military (FN303) rely on fins and shape to stop vortex shedding.



Something to add: When a point of view is WRONG, and demonstrably so, it's not a matter of tolerance and closed mindedness on the part of the "nay-sayer". Flat earth society members must love your line of reasoning.

[TheTramp]

simply trolling and arguing for arguments sake.

I think that at this point this is obviously the case.

[Lohman446]

The reason we beleive TKs testing is because he has shown us how he conducted the tests, the hypothesis he was seeking to test, and the data from the tests.

The reason we don't beleive Hammerhead is well... they haven't. They hide behind "we have degrees" or "we have done five years of R&D". Show me what R&D you did, the tests, etc.

Comes back to perfect circle paintballs and why many of us trust TK. TK hypothesised, as did many many of us, that more uniform paintballs would be better. He spent a lot of money, a lot of R&D into developing them... and then showed us the tests - they didn't help. Lets be thankful it was TK, a lot of other people would have talked about years of R&D, talked about things that sounded good but did not actually work, and hid the results, hiding behind vague "we beleives" and customer statements that look good but are of little value in quantitative analysis.

[magman007]

Why is it, that whenever fill spin vs shell spin is discussed people so readily jump to examples of eggs, glasses of water, and the earth, all of which are of entirely different scales and made of of entirely different materials with different inertial, fluid and drag properties?

When I spin my head, my brain that is floating in liquid CSF spins with my skull!

So what?

Why not look to paintballs themselves.....

Try this - find clear shelled paint (hard to do these days, I tried this with Nelson in 1987.) Build a centerfuge for it that puts the axis of the ball in the center of the spin. I did this with a motor the size of a Speed 280. At 6v, these motors typically reach about 14K RPM. I did this because the paint had settled, and each ball had a small air bubble. I'd hopped to spin the ball, and cause the fill to settle out to the equator using centripetal force, (hey we paid 20 cents a ball at the field then, saving paint in college was a big deal.) Anyhow, not only did I find that I couldn't develop enough force to redistribute the solid pigment of the fill, but I also found that if I braked the centerfuge with a piece of balsa from full speed to 0 rpm in a fraction of a second, that the fill stopped with the ball, in fact it showed no signs of movement at all. If the "fill spins separately from the ball" theory is true, the fill should have kept on whirling around in the shell. It didn't though - despite iced tea, egg yolks and the earth's core spinning seperately from their shells.

I guess that proves that paintballs are more like brains than iced tea. We're shooting "smart" projectiles after all.

Bill, its all i had for arguments sake, i realize that the examples are not full proof, or not as full proof as to how you just ended this thread, but they were the only examples i could think of, that any normalperson would deductively come up with a conclusion that incact, the fill does not move.




Mike, i dont see you enrolled at berkely now do i? one of our nations greatest schools. Didnt think so.... Care to share your community college degree with us?


Mike, give up. we might believe you if you read what we are telling you. give us a shred of proof to work on. but you cant furnish any thing, hammerhead barrel inc hasnt furnished any thing, and no one else in the industry has proven this to work, therefore you are wrong, hammer head barrels do not work as advertised. Period.

For the record, i have spoken to the hammerhead reps, i have shot the barrel before at a demonstration, vs a boomstick, and while they were proclaiming that their barrel was god, the boomstick performed just as well, if not better than the hammerhead.

[Lohman446]

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!

And Berkleys politcal leanings have what exactly to do with there knowledge and abilities to analyze balistics, fluid dynamics, and aerodynamics? Or for that matter anything that has anything to do with the discussion on hand.

Normal people: This is red
Mike: Is not
Normal people: This is red, it reflects the suns rays in the area of the spectrum known.....
Mike: Its a square
Rest of us? What? What does that have to do with red

[p8ntball72]

This may help those seeking truth..

http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/pball/pballphys1.html

[hitech]

This may help those seeking truth..
http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/pball/pballphys1.html

BTW, the author posted in the deep blue thread as 5X5.

[Target Practice]

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.

In case you missed it, Tom wasn't testing his own products.. He was testing other people claims for things he didn't produce. What gain would come of his fudging of the tests?

Would you let your child ride around in a car safety seat that everyone else's tests said was unsafe, but the Marketing Director said that his test (1) shows that it's okay?

Would you use a mask that hadn't been ATSM certified, but the Marketing Director said "Oh, don't worry about it, I did a test and it's okay."

The Marketing Director's job is to sell you things. Looked like it worked.

You don't go to school for 5-6 years to get an Engineering degree to go into marketing.

So here's a question for you: Do you think, that in his capacity as Marketing Director, if his test would have shown that the barrel does not stand up to their claims, and has no noticable effect on the flight of the ball, that he would just come out and say that?

[billmi]

Would you use a mask that hadn't been ATSM certified, but the Marketing Director said "Oh, don't worry about it, I did a test and it's okay."

It's not like we have a choice.

The ASTM doesn't certify anything. All they do is come up with the standards. Manufacturers tell us that they meet the standard. There isn't an outside agency making sure that they do.

[Target Practice]

It's not like we have a choice.

The ASTM doesn't certify anything. All they do is come up with the standards. Manufacturers tell us that they meet the standard. There isn't an outside agency making sure that they do.

I'll rephrase.

"Would you use a mask that does not meet ATSM standards, but the Marketing Director said 'Oh, don't worry about it, I did a test and it's okay.'"

[Vex]

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.

This is a perfect example of how you misrepresent what others say. (along with the other times Miscue has pointed it out...)

You posted Robert Judson's credentials, intending to show that he knows what he is talking about because he is "qualified" by degrees and titles to do so. However, when it was brought to your attention that "Mr. Hammerhead" has no paintball experience, and Tom Kaye does, you thought that I was saying that if "A" is correct, then "B" has to be incorrect.
Not so. I was simply clarifying that Robert Judson has no paintball experience to his credit (that was listed by you) and that Tom Kaye does; and, as Bill Mills stated, I'd take TK's opinion, based on his experiences, over RJ's any day of the week.
Now if it came to picking out which cookies tasted better, then I'd go with RJ's opinion, because he has experience with snacks.

You are fighting a losing battle--and not because "we" are close-minded. You are losing because there is more data to back our claims and "we" have the proof.

[Vex]

I'll rephrase.

"Would you use a mask that does not meet ATSM standards, but the Marketing Director said 'Oh, don't worry about it, I did a test and it's okay.'"

Yeah, if I wanted to win a huge settlement but only have one eye.