Hammerhead barrels, and their lies!

[Muzikman]

It's centripetal force (center seeking) for one, and the pixie dust you're talking about is basic Newtonian physics that's taught in colleges and highschools around the world.

Centrifugal force (center fleeing) is a false force.

Someone took atleast Physics 101:)

[VFX_Fenix]

Yeah, I took a little more than just Phyx 101 lol, the pains of being a science major. If I weren't already almost done with my BS I'd probably go back and major in Physics, along with a few other things lol.

[Mike Smith]

So... "centripetal force" will keep that paintball on the top side of the straight part of the flatline, aye? So there is no way a paintball could curve radically right or left after it exited the barrel, based on your "theory", aye? Have you ever used a flatline? Have you ever tested a flatline? Do you enjoy making up stuff? Do paintballs spin?

Yea... same-ol, same-ol....

Go back and re-read these posts. At least y'all are finally admitting that paintballs can be spun and that spin can affect the flight path of a paintball.

[FallNAngel]

So... "centripetal force" will keep that paintball on the top side of the straight part of the flatline, aye? So there is no way a paintball could curve radically right or left after it exited the barrel, based on your "theory", aye? Have you ever used a flatline? Have you ever tested a flatline? Do you enjoy making up stuff? Do paintballs spin?

Yea... same-ol, same-ol....

Yes, they can be spun... but the Flatline produces a spin on a different axis than what you're suggesting. The Flatline produces spin perpendicular to the direction it's moving... you're suggesting the Hammerhead puts enough parallel spin on the ball to increase accuracy.

Go back and re-read these posts. At least y'all are finally admitting that paintballs can be spun and that spin can affect the flight path of a paintball.

We never disputed that fact. We're disputing that you can spin it parallel to it's flight path and in doing so, increase accuracy.

[VFX_Fenix]

So... "centripetal force" will keep that paintball on the top side of the straight part of the flatline, aye? So there is no way a paintball could curve radically right or left after it exited the barrel, based on your "theory", aye? Have you ever used a flatline? Have you ever tested a flatline? Do you enjoy making up stuff? Do paintballs spin?

Yea... same-ol, same-ol....

Go back and re-read these posts. At least y'all are finally admitting that paintballs can be spun and that spin can affect the flight path of a paintball.

Have you ever used/tested a Flatline?

The Yaw that a ball experiences after it exits the Flatline is a well known result of not holding the Flatline perfectly vertical relative to the curvature of the barrel or fouling of the Flatline itself (broken paint, etc.). If you hold a gun with a Flatline sideways the ball will hook in the direction the top of the gun is pointing, the same is true if you invert the gun which will cause the paintball to dive into the ground.

I have used the Flatline barrel on both a Tippmann M98C and a Tippmann A-5 both at the firing range and on the field. I also happen to own a Tippmann A-5, not that it has much bearing on this point. If you happen to have more questions about the Flatline I sudgest that you ask the kids over at www.a5og.net, and tell KreeperX I sent you.

If you think I'm making this up then maybe you should go and take a physics class.

Paintballs do, as a point of fact, spin, and they spin quite nicely when acted uppon with thumb and forefinger.

This argument is moot since the type of spin being placed on the ball by the Flatline barrel and the Hammerhead barrel ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. The Flatline spins with the ball axis perpendicular to the direction of travel and the Hammerhead claims to impart spin with the ball axis parallel to the direction of travel. (The difference between the spin generated on a Golf Ball vs. the Spin used to stabalize a Football)

It has been proven that spinning a ball with the axis of rotation parallel to the direction of travel has no appreaciable effect uppon the consistancy of where the ball strikes. Spinning a ball with the axis of rotation perpendicular to the direction of travel (such as in the case of the Flatline) has proven to alter the distance the ball will travel but has no appreciable effect on the consistancy of the paintball strike point (some have contested it actually decreases consistancy of shot placement).

Why is it so hard for you to grasp these two concepts as different? The only similarity is that the ball is claimed to have a spin imparted uppon it by the barrel (in the case of the Flatline it isn't a claim as much as an accepted and provable fact). Aside from that ONE point which it seems your entire argument for why the Hammerhead works hinges uppon the barrels are completely different and work on completely different principles.

So Mr. Smith, here's a science question for you. If you see a monkey hanging in a tree and know that when it hears the shot from your paintball gun it'll drop straight down to the ground and run away, and you want to hit it on the first shot, where do you aim? Above it, At it, or Below it?

Here's another one.
If a bullet it held at the same height as another bullet in the chamber of a gun and there's a trap door that'll open the momment the gun is fired, and the gun barrel's axis is level, under ideal conditions, which bullet will strike the ground first?

And another.
If you take a weight on the end of a string and swing it around horizontally (clockwise if you look down) over your head then release the string when the weight is at the 12 O'Clock position, which way does the weight fly off in?

Edit - the 12 O'Clock position is directly infront of you.

[Archangel Zer0]

[Arson51]

They don't have to. People like us are not going to buy it anyway. The people they fool will not think to question it, they will just believe. That's their target customer - the ignoramus.

Maybe this is like the 6th sense, and Im really a ghost in rejection, thinking everyone is ignoring him.

I try to address every point I can when I can, but look, I cant check this thread as often as some, i majored in chem and bio in HS, and planning to have a physics/balistics free major in college. Im just not the most qualified person to carry a running debate on physics and be taken seriously.

Recap for those who dont care what Arson posts and want sparknotes

Arson dosent respond because
1. The very people that accuse arson of being smug, hits the points before arson can!
2. arson was a bio major, not a phys major!
3. This thread should be closed its just huge amounts of repeated statments and is quickly degreading into a name calling contest.

[Mike Smith]

So Mr. Smith, here's a science question for you. If you see a monkey hanging in a tree and know that when it hears the shot from your paintball gun it'll drop straight down to the ground and run away, and you want to hit it on the first shot, where do you aim? Above it, At it, or Below it?

Typical scientist wannabee.... They never give you enough information....

I'll make up the rest of the parameters...
I'm 25 feet below the monkey. I aim for center mass.

[FallNAngel]

Typical scientist wannabee.... They never give you enough information....

Seems to be a lot of that going around huh...

I'll make up the rest of the parameters...
I'm 25 feet below the monkey. I aim for center mass.

I like how you don't respond to the other questions and completely ignore the rest of his arguement

[zupe]

Considering the fount of knowledge, research, and insight that AGD represented under the leadership of TK, it's quite disappointing that the current president reminas virtually invisible on AO and only surfaces to make a snide remark.

Oh, well. Looks like if discussing the fundamentals of physics and paintball dynamics is "failing to get a grip" we can no longer count on AGD to be a source of hype free information. Does this forshadow a new direction for AGD products....

Are you trying to bait me? :)

[JoshK]

Well if he was I hope it worked. :)

[VFX_Fenix]

Typical scientist wannabee.... They never give you enough information....

I'll make up the rest of the parameters...
I'm 25 feet below the monkey. I aim for center mass.

I'm waiting for the rest of your replies, I'll give you that one since I failed to state what range you were dealing with.

However if you want Extra Credit, How about if you were standing 80' away from the monkey with it 50' up in a tree? (Same question otherwise)

[Mike Smith]

I'm waiting for the rest of your replies

Why? I've already proven that you ask nonsensical questions.

[VFX_Fenix]

Why? I've already proven that you ask nonsensical questions.

Because I neglect to give a range and altitude in one question? How infantile is that? And what was nonsensical about the other questions? Can you systematicaly pick appart my explanations/comments/arguments/questions to find the errors in my thinking/logic/etc. or are you going to sit back smugly on your haunches and make the following statement which just drips with logic?

"See, you made one mistake. Therefore, I am superior and the rest of what you have to say is as worthless as that particular question."

Gee, and I once uppon a time had faith in the public education system in this country.

And I almost forgot. Your logic in your response is flawed, because you cannot base a "fact" uppon one trial. In order for a Hypothesis to become Law (fact) in science you must prove that the outcome is both repeatable and constant without exception.

[Mike Smith]

When you decided to ask a "science question" or three, and the first one was a flawed non-sensical question and not a science question, why would anyone continue with your "questions"? Especially when they are as non-sensical as the first one.

And don't attempt to "guess" at my reason for ignoring your other two flights of fancy. You don't appear to be good at that, either.