A ported barrel/ length question

[Paladin]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast

Sorry Paladin, but that's garbage. If it's true it can be shown.

OK, I'll ask again: If you shoot a paintgun from a firmly fixed position and establish an average for the size of the shot group that results and then add an appliance to the end of the barrel that results in a measurable reduction in the size of the shots groups,what would that show you ? If you saw similar results in literally dozens of tests, would you be convinced of the cause of any improvements noted ?

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast

If you have such an appliance and test results proving it works, then why don't you sell it?

Fact is, I have both and have been selling such an appliance for over 15 years now. In fact, thousands of them went out with a money back garantee to improve accuracy on unvented barrels. I think it is only four such units that have been returned for the refund.
As far as "test results proving it works"; I gave you those test results before and you simply ignored them. Just what is it that would prove anything to you ? You may want to try to disprove it before going sideways.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SlartyBartFast

If the flash and escaping gases from a firearm balloon out and away from the projectile, whta bizzare deformation of space/time ocurs to make the air escaping at the end of the barrel effect a paintball? [/QUOTE

Nothing at all bizzar about it other than your failed reasoning. The fact is that when the gasses are released at the muzzle they want to go faster than the projectile and thus briefly do want to push on that projectile. If it is rigid and aerodynamic the escaping gasses will have very little effect on the flight path but if that projectile is flexible and not perfectly round, the effects are quite different. It is all just a matter of controlling the muzzle blast, specific to the projectile being launched. Another way to control or minimize the effect of muzzle blast is to tune the gun so there isn't a bunch of excess air and/or pressure behind the ball when it leaves the barrel.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Paladin
I think it is only four such units that have been returned for the refund.

Originally posted by Paladin
As far as "test results proving it works"; I gave you those test results before and you simply ignored them.

Did you give test results? When? So far you've just asked me to believe you and do all the testing myself.

Originally posted by Paladin
Just what is it that would prove anything to you?

List of equipment used, test set up, number of balls fired with and with out, measurements of impact radius with and without.

Then if I wanted to validate the test I (or anyone else) could run the test with identical conditions.

If your proposed test gives the results you claim, I'd believe you. But best guesses and observation don't cut it as proof.

Originally posted by Paladin
You may want to try to disprove it before going sideways.

[Paladin]

One more time.

If you shoot a paintgun from a firmly fixed position and establish an average for the size of the shot group that results and then add an appliance to the end of the barrel that results in a measurable reduction in the size of the shots groups,what would that show you ? If you saw similar results in literally dozens of tests, would you be convinced of the cause of any improvements noted ?

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Paladin
One more time.

You're not paying attention either. So don't play that game.

I you can show me. I'd believe.
But you can't. So I don't.

Is that so hard to understand?

You haven't shown or described a test like you are describing. Have you?

WARPIG DID show their test of closed vs. open bolt and you discredited them.

Your line of arguiment is completely unreasonable.

Yes, if your suppositions are correct, and Yes, if your test is performed and shows the results you are claiming, you would be correct.

But you haven't proved your suppositions, you haven't provided you test or results for scrutiney. Therefor you are far from being proven right.

I challenge your suppositions and doubt your test will show the results you claim it will.

AO, and particularily Deep Blue, is about Data. Not suppostions, what-ifs, and "believe me I know" statements. Regardless of who you might be.

You make the claim, You provide the proof.

So far the data, and physics, says a paintball travelling 300fps has the same accuracy no matter what marker, barrel, bolt system, or magic pixies were used to get it to that velocity.

The kiddies with money to burn and the vendors wanting to take it desparately believe otherwise.

Not to say there aren't many fine products and techniques to ensure consistency from a paint marker: good regulator, paint to barrel match, consistent paint, consistent marker. And I must say PPS does a fine job of filling those criteria.

[Paladin]

I'm not playing any games.
I asked a simple question and you toss out all kinds of inuendo to avoid answering it.
Why?
I've seen the results of the tests I mentioned and am quite capable of reading a ruler and understanding what I see. If you choose not to believe me, that is just fine with me and you are certainly welcome to do your own testing. However, you make a pretty convincing case that you wouldn't believe it, even if you saw it for yourself because it doesn't fit into your own preconceptions based theory.

Apparently, there is nothing that I could show you that could convince you of anything.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Paladin
Apparently, there is nothing that I could show you that could convince you of anything.

"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

Have you shown me anything? Nope.

Start by showing me something and then we can judge.

Innuendo? You're the first to start answering questions with questions friend. The pot is calling the kettle black.

The only allusion to performed tests you've made is: "But it has been shown, just maybe in not a way that you would/could see it."

If ya can't see it, ya can't measure it, and it don't prove squat.

Then you say dozens of tests have been performed and that you've performed measurements. But you don't want to give numbers?!?

Until you can show me something, point to an authorative source that proves your theories, or even give specific numbers from your use of a ruler and your own tests, I rest my case.

I've already agreed that the test you propose would be a perfect way to test the validity of your claims. But you haven't provided any data from said test. So far TK remains the only person in the paintball industry to post data ...

[Paladin]

OK, you win whatever challenge this is and you have proven the point of my origing post quite well; Thank you.

You want data but I can only post the results and we've already discused how I arrived at those results.

Numbers, about 9% average improvement with my muzzle break in about 75 direct comparisons, over a period of about 6 months, of shot groups (generally 50 shots) from every kind of gun I could get my hands on at the time. The only variable for comparison in any of the tests was that of with or without the muzzle break.
Distance to target 100ft
velocity 280 to 300 fps

A reduction in shot group dimensions (with muzzle break in place) could be measured in approximatly 88% of comparisons. Thus, in about 12% of my tests, I could find no measurable improvement by installing the muzzle break. Supporting my assertion that proper tuning makes the device less effective.
I also found that you can accomplish similar results by dilling some holes in your barrel and filing off the burrs, as you suggested, which is why we don't sell so many muzzle breaks these days.


Now, you can chew on that for bit. I'm sure you'll come up with enough witty changes in direction to keep us entertained for awhile.

[SlartyBartFast]

Geez Paladin, was it really all that hard to do?

Now we need someone to second the test data.

But a 9% increase at 100ft? I assume we're talking about a 9% reduction in the shot grouping size. So it's going from 12 in to 10.9 in. The way paintball is played I'd class that as insignificant. (Except for the paintball snipers with scopes )

And at least some of what I suspected is proven true. Tuning the marker correctly so it's firing consistently is the best thing you can do for accuracy.

Now to really show that the escaping gas has a noticable effect, someone should try firing out of two different length barrels. If the air burst removes accuracy the shorter barrel should be less accurate.

Or, take a barrel you don't like, fire a large number of shots recording impacts, then cut a few inches off the end, re-chrono and then fire some more. Compare groupings. I would suspect that you'd have to use a single bore barrel to make a valid test.

[Miscue]

I'm going to assume that this "device" works.

Here are 3 deduced situations:

A. The device accidentally works and the nature of the phenomenon that it defeats is not clearly understood. The claims about turbulence, etc. cannot be taken seriously.

B. The nature of the phenomenon is understood clearly, which makes possible the design of a device which can defeat it.

C. The assumption is incorrect, and the device does not work. All claims of its performance are to be disregarded.

Choice B - is what is being claimed. If B is true, then there should be answers to these questions because the problem is understood - otherwise the device could not be designed to function as it does without it being accidental.

Questions:

Do you clearly understand the problem, such that the creation of your device was made possible?

Do your accuracy tests prove the existence of turbulence, and have you ruled out the possibility of different forces that have not been mentioned?

What is the nature of this turbulence and what is "turbulence" for that matter?

Does this turbulence deviate the path of the ball by interfering with spin, velocity, and/or trajectory? These deviations are detectable right out of the barrel and can account for the magnified loss of accuracy down range - how did you detect them out of the barrel - or are you just interpreting the end result?

[Paladin]

Originally posted by SlartyBartFast


And at least some of what I suspected is proven true. Tuning the marker correctly so it's firing consistently is the best thing you can do for accuracy.

Well, I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion based on what I said but since you feel that 9% is insignificant in any aspect of this debate, I guess that allows you to arrive at any conclusions you wish.

Although, I found the element of efficency to be more relevant to the results of the tests under scrutiny here.
In that, without regard to small variations in actual velocity, a gun that fired more efficiently generally showed less improvement with a muzzle break in place than a gun that showed lower efficiency numbers. In short, the more efficient the piece the better the accuracy.
One particular piece that comes to mind was and old PMI-3 (later known as VM68) that demonstrated excellent consistency over the chrono but was lucky to hit any part of "the barn", thus being an excellent test subject. The muzzle break showed an improvement (reductiion in shot group size) well beyond the averages but tuning with a focus on efficiency showed even greater improvements over all, even though the actual consistency of the velocity readings went down.

[Paladin]

Originally posted by Miscue
I'm going to assume that this "device" works.

Here are 3 deduced situations:

A. The device accidentally works and the nature of the phenomenon that it defeats is not clearly understood.

Certainly not an accident but there was quite a bit of trial and error involved in getting it right.

B. The nature of the phenomenon is understood clearly, which makes possible the design of a device which can defeat it.

Absolutely.


C. The assumption is incorrect, and the device does not work. All claims of its performance are to be disregarded.

Well, the results of the tests indicate that it does work so "C" can be disregarded.

Choice B - is what is being claimed. If B is true, then there should be answers to these questions because the problem is understood - otherwise the device could not be designed to function as it does without it being accidental.

Questions:

Do you clearly understand the problem, such that the creation of your device was made possible?

Yes indeed, I have full understanding of the problem.

Do your accuracy tests prove the existence of turbulence, and have you ruled out the possibility of different forces that have not been mentioned?

The only force effect that I sought to control was the muzzle blast that I don't think should be described as "turbulance" since that part of the muzzle blast that can affect the ball is very lineal in motion along the same axis of the barrel and initial flight path of the ball. The results of the accuracy tests could only prove that the device did what it was intended to do.

What is the nature of this turbulence and what is "turbulence" for that matter?

I understand turbulance as a movement of air and/or pressure that is contrary to the axis of flight. (higly simplified version)
I consider the problem to be more like a tail wind, briely pushing on and past a semi-round, spherical projectile . With dimensions that are typically larger at the equator than at the poles, there is usually a planing effect tangent somewhat relative to the orientation of the seem as the ball leaves the barrel. Hence, the ball gets a little kick in the tail and it's rudder is seldom in line.

Does this turbulence deviate the path of the ball by interfering with spin, velocity, and/or trajectory?

Trajectory.

These deviations are detectable right out of the barrel and can account for the magnified loss of accuracy down range - how did you detect them out of the barrel - or are you just interpreting the end result?

Well I don't have any high speed photography of it, if that is what you mean and I don't have the scientific type background that would enable me to know a way "detect" or measure the variables at the instant that the ball leaves the barrel. Although, I do have a bit over 40 years experience in dealing with getting a projectile to go where I want it to, and I've proven that I'm quite good at it. Which only serves to say that I clearly understand the problem and the steps to take to deal with it, even if I can't write the correct formula to prove it to anyone else.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by Paladin
Well, I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion based on what I said but since you feel that 9% is insignificant in any aspect of this debate, I guess that allows you to arrive at any conclusions you wish.

Well, you said that equal or better improvements were to be had by tuning the marker.

As for 9% being significant, well it would be if paintball was one shot one elimination, but it ain't.

If you have to shoot serveral times to ensure a break, that 1" improvement overall hardly matters.

ANd from a stistics viewpoint accuracy improvements are far more dependant on standard deviations than they are in grouping size.

[trains are bad]

If you have to shoot serveral times to ensure a break, that 1" improvement overall hardly matters.

I disagree. Accurcy is always significant, ROF doesn't matter. More hits=more breaks in less time.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by trains are bad
I disagree. Accurcy is always significant, ROF doesn't matter. More hits=more breaks in less time.

1 inch over 100 feet is something like 0.05 degress of deviation of the barrel.

Degrees(ArcTAN((1/12)/100))

Practice till you hold and fire your marker with that kind of precision and then you can worry about a 1" group size reduction.

[trains are bad]

Practice till you hold and fire your marker with that kind of precision and then you can worry about a 1" group size reduction.

I realize we our aim is the weakest link. That's why we need all the help we can get.