Hammerhead barrels, and their lies!

[hitech]

You say that you don't refute ALL of TK's testing. So, what parts do you agree with and which do you disagree with?

Yeah, Inquiring minds want to know...

[Lohman446]

Well the controlled testing done in the lab with equipment designed to take quantitative measurements is obviously inferior to what I "see" on the field.

[hitech]

Damn, just when it was getting fun.....

[Lohman446]

Damn, just when it was getting fun.....

Alright... let me tru for a few.

My mystical barrel that my friend R&D'ed for five years (and he studied engineering somewhere fancy before quitting after a year) is better than any barrel you have.

It magically imparts spin through rifling - unless you prove that rifling is not useful at which point I am going to tell you that the rifling is so sharp that it scores the paintball, but doesn't cause it to break in the barrel.

It uses electromagneticpneumatichydro systems to size the barrel to each ball, and to clean itself out.

It shoots further and straighter and more accurate than any of your barrels, but very few people use them because there just stupid...

And umm um ok.. I just can't do it.

[Automaggot68]

Alright... let me tru for a few.

My mystical barrel that my friend R&D'ed for five years (and he studied engineering somewhere fancy before quitting after a year) is better than any barrel you have.

It magically imparts spin through rifling - unless you prove that rifling is not useful at which point I am going to tell you that the rifling is so sharp that it scores the paintball, but doesn't cause it to break in the barrel.

It uses electromagneticpneumatichydro systems to size the barrel to each ball, and to clean itself out.

It shoots further and straighter and more accurate than any of your barrels, but very few people use them because there just stupid...

And umm um ok.. I just can't do it.

Damn. Five years to design a barrel?
I can't imagine the RD that went into that'
'DAMNIT, ITS STILL BENT'
-'HOW ARE WE GOING TO REMEDY THIS, GENTLEMEN?'
'MAKE IT STRAIGHT'
-' BRILLIANT.'
I'td take ma less time to......
Get a four years Degree...
Build a House....
Design my Own Barrel...

[KRAKMT]

It sounds like what everyone is dancing around is the scientific model.
People are asking for the data to test the hypothesis.
Hypothosis- hamerhead barrels make paintballs fly farther than smooth bore barrels?
Why/how?

The conclusion must be subjected to testing- oft times by the sceptics. Otherwise it is a bare assertion without meaning. The testing must also be repeatable.

Now to say that the prior research is infallible is to overlook potential break thoughs in our world. Many examples of mans narrowmindedness have prolonging suffering and minimizing progress. Just as problematic is the idea of embracing unproven conclusion. Chris C. proved the hypothis that the world was round when he sailed west from Spain. Antithically, carpet baggers post civil war made fortunes on snake oil.

Mr. Smith I believe hammerhead- or yourself as the propounder bears the burden of proof. Otherwise, imho the barrel can stay in the carpet bag.

As for testing- I have been meaning to send off some things to my elder brothers- mechanical and electrical engineers for some independent testing- without product bias because they are not paintballers. Any additional parameters to control for the tests?

[Target Practice]

Now to say that the prior research is infallible is to overlook potential break thoughs in our world. Many examples of mans narrowmindedness have prolonging suffering and minimizing progress.

The impacts of some research are permanent. As you said, the earth is round, and always will be round. There is no need to research this any further, as nothing has changed.

Since the tests done by Tom and Bill, nothing has changed, for the most part. Barrels are still honed pieces of aluminum, and paint is still a water-based substance inside an outer gelitan shell. Nothing is truely and groundbreakingly new.

[Army]

The impacts of some research are permanent. As you said, the earth is round, and always will be round. There is no need to research this any further, as nothing has changed.

Since the tests done by Tom and Bill, nothing has changed, for the most part. Barrels are still honed pieces of aluminum, and paint is still a water-based substance inside an outer gelitan shell. Nothing is truely and groundbreakingly new.

The ultimate bingo! Check and checkmate! He shoots, he scores!

"GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLL!"

[KRAKMT]

Is the world round? I thought it was egg shaped? And what about all the theories regarding gravity, parrallel universes and string theory?
I agree that the tests by Tom and Bill are strong evidence but it is up to the hammerhead folks to show there proof, and subject it to scientific scrutiny. It is as wrong to be blinded by doubt as it is to be blinded by hype. Remember Tom said "no appreciable benefit" not that it couldn't.
But at anyrate this is academic because hammerhead sales are based on- marketing. Funny people have always critized AGD for not selling themselves.

Wouldn't it be nice to have an independent laboratories.

The impacts of some research are permanent. As you said, the earth is round, and always will be round. There is no need to research this any further, as nothing has changed.

Since the tests done by Tom and Bill, nothing has changed, for the most part. Barrels are still honed pieces of aluminum, and paint is still a water-based substance inside an outer gelitan shell. Nothing is truely and groundbreakingly new.

[Target Practice]

Is the world round? I thought it was egg shaped? And what about all the theories regarding gravity, parrallel universes and string theory?
I agree that the tests by Tom and Bill are strong evidence but it is up to the hammerhead folks to show there proof, and subject it to scientific scrutiny. It is as wrong to be blinded by doubt as it is to be blinded by hype. Remember Tom said "no appreciable benefit" not that it couldn't.
But at anyrate this is academic because hammerhead sales are based on- marketing. Funny people have always critized AGD for not selling themselves.

Wouldn't it be nice to have an independent laboratories.

Round != spherical. Round = round. There is a difference.

Also, I don't think that gravity, parrallel universes, and string theory have anything to do with your example.

The point is, the tests and the evidence provided by Tom, Bill, Army, myself, and others prove that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible for rifled barrels to work in the manner that they are designed. I don't have to see "proof" of why they do work.

It's not a matter of doubt, it's a matter of knowing the facts.

[Lohman446]

Round != spherical. Round = round. There is a difference.

Also, I don't think that gravity, parrallel universes, and string theory have anything to do with your example.

The point is, the tests and the evidence provided by Tom, Bill, Army, myself, and others prove that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible for rifled barrels to work in the manner that they are designed. I don't have to see "proof" of why they do work.

It's not a matter of doubt, it's a matter of knowing the facts.

You seem to be ignoring the electromagneticpneumatichydro factor

[Target Practice]

You seem to be ignoring the electromagneticpneumatichydro factor

*Smacks Head*

Duh.

[Mike Smith]

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

Let's review:

Miscue posted:

Now if it doesn't fit right in the "big" hole, and the rifling in the big hole does not come into contact with the little ball, what does this particular "rifling" do exactly?

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.

Then Target Practice posted:

So your saying that Tom and Mr. Mills tests are incorrect, because it works better for you? Again, your success is merely psychological or coincidental.

Despite clear evidence that I never stated any such thing, Target Practice "thinks" I said their testing was incorrect.

Then Magman007 posted:

Look, the liquid in the ball, doesnt spin, therefore, the shell is the only thing spinning, ever turn your glass with liquid in it? notice how the liquid doesnt spin?

That is easily proven wrong by adding a drop of coloration to the water and spinning the glass more than 1 revolution.

Then Startybartfast posted:

Watch the paintballs? So, your eyes are more powerful and accurate than the high speed camera and strobes used by TK?

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.

He then posts:

Paintballs spin out of every barrel. Rifled or not.

Which is pretty much what I stated....

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?

Krakmt posted:

Hypothosis- hamerhead barrels make paintballs fly farther than smooth bore barrels?

I have not made that assertation, nor do I believe that to be true. I do believe I can "break paint" further than a smooth bore barrel.

And, in a lame attempt at humor, Lohman446 posted:

It magically imparts spin through rifling - unless you prove that rifling is not useful at which point I am going to tell you that the rifling is so sharp that it scores the paintball, but doesn't cause it to break in the barrel.

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...

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.

[hitech]

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.

Hey, I'm one of those "scientifix know-it-alls". I didn't intentionally lie or misrepresent anything. However, I cannot say the same thing for the Hammerhead rep.


And I think that you will find that when Tom said significant he meant noticeable without extensive testing and close measurements. In the less than one percent range.

I take it you haven't read the deep blue thread?

[KRAKMT]

[QUOTE=Arson51]I got by back from D-day yesterday and when i woke up this morning the conversation i had with a co-creator of the hammerhead barrel was fresh on my mind. He was talking to a customer and claimed that the short 8 inch hammerhead was just as accurate as the 12 inch model except that the 8" had less range. ....the longer barrel has more distance to accelerate the ball thus it has more inertia! blah blah blah
QUOTE]

Hammerhead hypothesis was taken from first post. There alleged claims.

As for breaking down field- it was asserted by a respectable agd guy that they would pit a screw in the end of the barrel to score the ball to break easier during play indoors. hmmm?

So is your hypothisis that the hammerhead barrels rifeling scars the ball which causes breakage at farther distances?

Whats with the food color analogy.