Hammerhead barrels, and their lies!

[Miscue]

"I will be glad to explain exactly how it works with you if you truly want to know. Rotation is key, not spinning..." Robert Judson - President of Hammerhead

Main Entry: spin
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: circle
Synonyms: circuit, gyration, revolution, roll, rotation, turn, twist, whirl
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.


Here's another:

Main Entry: tool
Part of Speech: noun 2
Definition: accomplice
Synonyms: accessory, accomplice, agent, auxiliary, cat's-paw, chump, creature, dupe, easy mark, figurehead, flunky, go-between, greenhorn, hayseed, hireling, idiot, intermediary, jackal, lackey, mark, medium, messenger, minion, patsy, pawn, peon, puppet, stooge, stool pigeon, sucker, tuna, vehicle
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

[Vex]

"I will be glad to explain exactly how it works with you if you truly want to know. Rotation is key, not spinning..." Robert Judson - President of Hammerhead

As Miscue stated...this dude's a tool.

"If you are interested in talking with me, my cell is xxx-xxx-xxxx. I am not trying to sell you a barrel. I do care to communicate with you in a positive and helpful way if you would like."

Someone call his cell phone and call him out on his misrepresentations of his product's abilities.

[Jack & Coke]

Main Entry: spin
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: circle
Synonyms: circuit, gyration, revolution, roll, rotation, turn, twist, whirl
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.


Here's another:

Main Entry: tool
Part of Speech: noun 2
Definition: accomplice
Synonyms: accessory, accomplice, agent, auxiliary, cat's-paw, chump, creature, dupe, easy mark, figurehead, flunky, go-between, greenhorn, hayseed, hireling, idiot, intermediary, jackal, lackey, mark, medium, messenger, minion, patsy, pawn, peon, puppet, stooge, stool pigeon, sucker, tuna, vehicle
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Bwhahahaha!!!!



pwned

[billmi]

Rotation is key, not spinning...

spin Audio pronunciation of spin ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spn)
v. spun, (spn) spin·ning, spins
v. tr.

1.
1. To draw out and twist (fibers) into thread.
2. To form (thread or yarn) in this manner.
2. To form (a web or cocoon, for example) by extruding viscous filaments.
3. To make or produce by or as if by drawing out and twisting.
4.
1. To relate or create: spun tales for the children.
2. To prolong or extend: spin out a visit with an old friend.
5. To cause to rotate swiftly; twirl.
6. To shape or manufacture by a twirling or rotating process.
7. To provide an interpretation of (a statement or event, for example), especially in a way meant to sway public opinion: “a messenger who spins bogus research into a vile theology of hatred” (William A. Henry III).
8. Slang. To play (a phonograph record or records), especially as a disc jockey.

The only thing I can take from this statement is that somehow the rotation of the ball is more important than the fact that the ball is caused to rotate.

That seems to be a very odd claim, but indeed a statement of the obvious. Rather if rotation of the ball is important, it shouldn't matter if the ball was spun by rifling, or by a barrel spinning in a vise.

I suppose the opposite of this claim, that spin was more important than rotation would be much more Zen. Which is of greater importance, the journey, or the destination?

[Mike Smith]

Ok, now I understand, Mark.

If I post:
mo·ron Audio pronunciation of "moron" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrn, mr-)
n.

1. A stupid person; a dolt.
2. Psychology. A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: moron
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: stupid
Synonyms: addle-pate, ***, blockhead, bonehead, boob, cretin, dimwit, dingbat, dolt, dope, dork, dumbbell, dumbo, dummy, dunce, dunderhead, fool, goose, halfwit, idiot, ignoramus, imbecile, lamebrain, loony, loser, lunkhead, mental defective, muttonhead, nerd, numskull, retard, simp, simpleton, stoop, stupid, tomfool, zany
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

And don't "name names", then that's OK, even if i never stated that the barrel will impart consistent extreme rotation.

Sorry about the misunderstanding from 6-27-05. And Miscue, thanks for letting me know where the boundaries are.

[Army]

Look, the claims by Hammerhead simply do not withstand physics or logical scrutiny.

Rotation, spin, revolve...all are the same, and mean nothing in accuracy when it comes to paintballs. A liquid media simply cannot be spun axially with consistency, or predictability, in the very short time a paintball is under the influence of a barrel, regardless of rifling, elves, or bad hype marketing.

Let's stop the bickering, accept the physics, and deny the hype.

Hammerhead, you lost here. Unless you can bring to us the multi-year study that "proves" your theories, we at AO just cannot believe a word of what you say.

Proof is truth.

[VFX_Fenix]

Well if someone would be willing to donate a Hammer Head I'd be more than willing to do a field test of said barrel and return the HH free of charge to the owner

With ready access to a CP Barrel Kit, Freak, TASO Pro Series, Long Shot, and a few other misc. barrels as well as a Chrono and a field. Or I suppose I could just ummm... you know buy one of these barrels... I dunno, but anyway. (kidding unless I suddenly recieve a huge pile of requests in my inbox and see a Hammer Head appear on my door step)

Ultimately a field test which happens to yield a higher degree of consistancy with the Hammer Head which is repeatable will hurt the arguments against the barrel working better for the reasons stated by the manufacturer and the individuals who believe these reasons.

/echo what's been said about rotating a paintball not doing anything appreciable yada yada yada.

Can't we all accept what AGD's done on this subject and give it a rest?

It's very clear that Hammer Head is either well indoctrined with how their barrels "work".

This being the issue there's no ammount of empirical evidence that will sway anyone's opinion of the true function of these barrels because on the bottom line, the barrels appear to work.

It's like back in the old days when guns were first being rifled the increase in accuracy was atributed to the rifling being "the Devil's Work" by the church. This was proven by having a rifleman fire at a target with a ball that had a large cross cut into it and him having the same accuracy as a smooth bore but a ball fired that didn't bear the "holy symbol" was more accurate at longer ranges than the smooth bore. Diffinative "proof" that the Devil was in the rifling and the "power of God" had undone his evil powers over the ball.

Bottom line, bullets with crosses cut in them undid the improved accuracy of the rifle, therefore, rifles are the Devil's work. As the old saying goes, "The proof is in the pudding".

[Miscue]

It's kind of a waste of time... unless you video tape a two-toned or marked paintball in flight coming out of the barrel... showing that the cosmetic rifling didn't do a damn thing.

[VFX_Fenix]

I could do that, the field owner has a mini DV camcorder he uses on the field all the time and 2 tone paint isn't all that hard to come across, just grab a case of PMI Premium Blue/Black shell Blue fill paint.

[Miscue]

I could do that, the field owner has a mini DV camcorder he uses on the field all the time and 2 tone paint isn't all that hard to come across, just grab a case of PMI Premium Blue/Black shell Blue fill paint.

It would be very difficult to do it well with a regular camcorder.

[billmi]

A liquid media simply cannot be spun axially with consistency, or predictability, in the very short time a paintball is under the influence of a barrel

Yet, somehow, Tippmann does it fine with the flatline. The axis of the spin is perpendicular to the flight path, in their case, but I don't see how orientation of the spin would affect whether or not the fill could be spun. Again, I ask on what are these claims based, besides models of different scales and viscosities than paint fill?

[Target Practice]

Yet, somehow, Tippmann does it fine with the flatline. The axis of the spin is perpendicular to the flight path, in their case, but I don't see how orientation of the spin would affect whether or not the fill could be spun. Again, I ask on what are these claims based, besides models of different scales and viscosities than paint fill?

Principles behind the Flatline != Principles behind the Hammerhead. They're two different systems.

[SlartyBartFast]

Principles behind the Flatline != Principles behind the Hammerhead. They're two different systems.

True. But bimill is absolutely correct.

You can't argue that a paintball CAN'T be spun. The Flatline and BT Apex prove it can.

Now, whether spinning helps stabilize paintball flight and improves accuracy (AGD testing proved it doesn't) or whether the Hammerhead actually imparts such spin (which by all laws of physics and reason it can't) are different arguments.

[SlartyBartFast]

It would be very difficult to do it well with a regular camcorder.

Very true.

But imagine TK had used this setup: https://www.automags.org/forums/showt...21#post1946221

TK needs to get one of these:
http://www.epixinc.com/products/pixci_cl3sd.htm

1280 x 1024 resolution at 500 frames per second.

They’ve already filmed paintballs at high speed.
http://www.epixinc.com/vision/xc_cl3sd.htm

Just a little pricey though.

[Army]

Bill, the Flatline uses the entire length of the barrel to roll the ball into a backspin (magnus effect), the ball is in hard contact all the way out. The ball and fill begin rotation at the same speed, at the same time. (slowly turn the glass of water, liquid will follow). Let's call it 1 full second of barrel influence.

Hammerhead claims to spin the ball axially (point on, like a football), with minimum at best contact with the very abreviated rifled section of the barrel (spin the glas 1/8 turn quickly, liquid will not follow). Any possible rotation given the ball, will be too fast for the liquid inside to follow. The shell will slow and stop.....much like spinning a raw egg. Let's call it 1/100 of a second.

1 full second of hard influence, compared to 1/100th of a second of marginal, if any at all, influence.

Which is all a moot point. Earlier testing with very slow, to very high rotational values concluded that axial rotation does nothing for the accuracy potential of paintballs.

I am sure that Hammerhead barrels are very well made, at least the few I have been able to examine. But unsubstantiated and unproven claims are the focus of this thread. Hammerhead barrels do NOT induce increased accuracy due to some arbitrary rotational value, which cannot be achieved by conventional firearm style rifling in the first place.

I've too many years in real life ballistic research, and many years in paintball. I can process reality with fiction, and easily discern the difference

[SlartyBartFast]

Ya know, I unsubscribed from this thread as I figured it was dead in the water and jousting with the troll just wasn't amusing me anymore.

But in so doing, I had missed the post from Hammerhead (Arson51/Robert Judson).

What a riot. Spin!=rotation.

Can't Mike or Arson51 adress even one of the points made against them?

It's like arguing with fundamentalist religious types. They sit back a smuggly declare tehmselves victorious because they decalre IT is the truth because IT is written (or some other vacuous circular argument) while the sentient and logical break apart having a deep philisophical argument.

Army and Bill, you agree with each other. Stop.

Anyone who supports Hammerhead: Give us some proof of the claims please. Basic science says you have to prove the claim/hypothesis. Not the falsehood (indeed scientifically it is impossible to prove negatives).

[Arson51]

Ya know, I unsubscribed from this thread as I figured it was dead in the water and jousting with the troll just wasn't amusing me anymore.

But in so doing, I had missed the post from Hammerhead (Arson51/Robert Judson).

What a riot. Spin!=rotation.

Can't Mike or Arson51 adress even one of the points made against them?

It's like arguing with fundamentalist religious types. They sit back a smuggly declare tehmselves victorious because they decalre IT is the truth because IT is written (or some other vacuous circular argument) while the sentient and logical break apart having a deep philisophical argument.

Army and Bill, you agree with each other. Stop.

Anyone who supports Hammerhead: Give us some proof of the claims please. Basic science says you have to prove the claim/hypothesis. Not the falsehood (indeed scientifically it is impossible to prove negatives).

Im on holiday right now Im not able to get on the computer often, I plan to call him and discuss what he mailed to me once Im not enjoying cockails on the beach, and partying until dawn's break .

I'd like to respond but Im seriously intimidated by some of the very competent regulars here. Id pipe in but every time I have a good idea its posted quicker, and more eloquently than I would manage. Actually I caught a nasty cold with chills nasal drainage and everything .

[Miscue]

Bill, the Flatline uses the entire length of the barrel to roll the ball into a backspin (magnus effect), the ball is in hard contact all the way out. The ball and fill begin rotation at the same speed, at the same time. (slowly turn the glass of water, liquid will follow). Let's call it 1 full second of barrel influence.

Hammerhead claims to spin the ball axially (point on, like a football), with minimum at best contact with the very abreviated rifled section of the barrel (spin the glas 1/8 turn quickly, liquid will not follow). Any possible rotation given the ball, will be too fast for the liquid inside to follow. The shell will slow and stop.....much like spinning a raw egg. Let's call it 1/100 of a second.

1 full second of hard influence, compared to 1/100th of a second of marginal, if any at all, influence.

Which is all a moot point. Earlier testing with very slow, to very high rotational values concluded that axial rotation does nothing for the accuracy potential of paintballs.

I am sure that Hammerhead barrels are very well made, at least the few I have been able to examine. But unsubstantiated and unproven claims are the focus of this thread. Hammerhead barrels do NOT induce increased accuracy due to some arbitrary rotational value, which cannot be achieved by conventional firearm style rifling in the first place.

I've too many years in real life ballistic research, and many years in paintball. I can process reality with fiction, and easily discern the difference

I still... very much dislike any comparison between paintball fill and water / raw eggs / etc... it makes me cringe. I don't find it pertinent.

I don't understand "1 full second" of barrel influence. For a 12" barrel... that's roughly 60 fps. Ok... if I stop to think about what you're trying to say... you're kinda making up some kind of comparative scale... and I kinda get the point that's trying to be made. Still don't like it. I also don't like the idea that a longer duration of contact implies significantly more spin.

Supposing that the "rifling" of the Hammerhead actually did anything... it also goes for most of the barrel length.

[Miscue]

Ya know, I unsubscribed from this thread as I figured it was dead in the water and jousting with the troll just wasn't amusing me anymore.

But in so doing, I had missed the post from Hammerhead (Arson51/Robert Judson).

What a riot. Spin!=rotation.

Can't Mike or Arson51 adress even one of the points made against them?

It's like arguing with fundamentalist religious types. They sit back a smuggly declare tehmselves victorious because they decalre IT is the truth because IT is written (or some other vacuous circular argument) while the sentient and logical break apart having a deep philisophical argument.

Army and Bill, you agree with each other. Stop.

Anyone who supports Hammerhead: Give us some proof of the claims please. Basic science says you have to prove the claim/hypothesis. Not the falsehood (indeed scientifically it is impossible to prove negatives).

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. Plenty of them out there with cash in their pockets. Hey... I believed that SmartParts spiral rifling worked too, and that somehow some barrels were more accurate than others - when I first got into paintball and didn't know anything. However... I was always very skeptical because I never had a clear answer as to why that was... and more information on this subject was unavailable to me.

And I don't really blame Hammerhead too much for doing that - don't like it either. The barrel market is pretty saturated... gotta offer some kind of novelty to attract customers - even if it's Dumbo's magic feather (as suggested by Shartley) that they are offering.

[Mike Smith]

When I'm having a discussion with anyone, I always look for the intentional misrepresentation made by that person, such as:

I've too many years in real life ballistic research, and many years in paintball. I can process reality with fiction, and easily discern the difference

And

Bill, the Flatline uses the entire length of the barrel to roll the ball into a backspin (magnus effect), the ball is in hard contact all the way out.

Wrong. The flatline is curved for maybe 1/3 of its length. I'm wondering if this "expert" is contending that the straight part of the flatline is inducing spin on the ball, too?

And then we have the blanket "informed" statements, such as:

People like us are not going to buy it anyway. The people they fool will not think to question it, they will just believe.

Despite the fact that the Hammerhead clearly improved the accuracy of my gun, based on my 14-year history with my Mag, this person just "knows" I've been duped....


Yea.... Right.....

[Lohman446]

I question anyone that mentions extended testing, goes straight to there "credentials" and never bothers to show us how these tests were conducted or the outcome.

[shartley]

I will also reiterate that just because someone sees an improvement in their accuracy, it does not mean it is because of the reasons the manufacturer may claim it is. Making a direct coloration between the two and therefore using that as “proof” the manufacture was correct is foolish. But of course many manufacturers count on this happening. The belief in reasons for benefits (or perceived benefits) is as important in marketing now days as whether a benefit is really there or not.

This does not mean the products are not good. This does not mean the products will not in some way improve something for the user. It is only saying that to believe stated reasons for that improvement with no actual hard data to support it is the issue at hand, and is foolish.

I will go back to the Dumbo analogy (since Miscue brought it up again). In the story, could Dumbo fly? Yes. Was there any dispute whether Dumbo was actually flying? No. Did the “magic feather” cause, or enable Dumbo to fly? No. Dumbo could fly with or without the magic feather.

And to translate that to barrel claims…. There are some who simply want to believe that what they are being told is the truth. They see an increase in accuracy for themselves so they WANT to believe that the “feather” was the thing that was causing it…. because the manufacturer said so. Of course you can switch to a good many other barrels and see an increase or decrease in accuracy too, and none of them are claiming to have a magic feather.

So how important is that feather? For reality, it is worthless. For marketing it is priceless.

All the other arguments are academic and actually show that no matter how much scientific proof is shown to counter a Magic Feather claim, there will be a good many who will simply not believe it. Their need to believe in something is simply too strong to argue against. And I would say that if a $300 barrel helps improve your game, fine. If you think it is worth the price, fine. But to argue against simple physics to help justify a purchasing decision…. Oh my.

[Muzikman]

I guess I would have had to actually seen Dumbo to understand that post

There are now two barrels that prove that you CAN "spin" a paintball (Flatline & BT Apex). Both however spin the ball on a different axis than what the hammerhead claims.

The new BT Apex barrel also proves that to spin a ball you only need about 2" of travel in a 12-14" barrel.

Does this prove the Hammerhead really works...nope. But it does prove you can spin a paintball.

[zupe]

See what happens when Tom retires............ fresh tread, more traction, maybe more people should retire and get a grip

[VFX_Fenix]

Wrong. The flatline is curved for maybe 1/3 of its length. I'm wondering if this "expert" is contending that the straight part of the flatline is inducing spin on the ball, too?.

Actually he's correct, because of the initial curvature of the Flatline barrel the ball will ride the top surface of the barrel until it exits the barrel because of centripital force. The ball is influenced by the upper surface of the Flatline Barrel for the entire length of that barrel once the ball comes in contact with that surface. The same principle works with Hi-Ligh(sp?) scoops (I have no idea what the propper term for these are) and roller coasters and just about everything else that you can imagine that follows a curved path which is then allowed to travel more or less freely on its own.

[SlartyBartFast]

See what happens when Tom retires............ fresh tread, more traction, maybe more people should retire and get a grip

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....

[Target Practice]

Wrong. The flatline is curved for maybe 1/3 of its length. I'm wondering if this "expert" is contending that the straight part of the flatline is inducing spin on the ball, too?

I just want to chime in and say that the expert you're referring to has forgotten more about ballistics than you'll ever learn.

[Mike Smith]

Actually he's correct, because of the initial curvature of the Flatline barrel the ball will ride the top surface of the barrel until it exits the barrel because of centripital force.

Oh? So centrifical force, combined with the "standard issue" pixie dust, keeps that paintball firmly attached to the top of the straight part of the barrel so it can continue to pick up spin from the previously curved part of the barrel?

Yea.... Right.....

[hitech]

Oh? So centrifical force...

I believe he said centripetal force.

Centripetal (meaning "center seeking" in Latin) means directed towards the center. CENTRIPETAL FORCE Centripetal force is a force that acts upon a body moving in a curved path. This force is directed towards the center of the curvature of the path. It is equal to, but opposite the centrifugal force.

Centrifugal (meaning "center fleeing" in Latin) means directed outwards from the center. CENTRIFUGAL FORCE Centrifugal force is a force that acts upon a body spinning on an axis. This force is directed away from the body. Centrifugal force is equal to, but opposite the centripeta force.

Questions & Answers: Centrifical force
"[Q] From Sharla Hardy: 'Until I took high school physics, I believed that there was such a thing as centrifical force. In class I learned that there was no such thing, only two related forces called centripetal and centrifugal. Is centrifical a conflation of the two? A mistake for centrifugal? Is there a history for the word, or was it, say, heard on Saturday morning cartoons and spread from there'

[A] Those versed in Newtonian mechanics will of course say at once that centrifugal force doesn’t actually exist, but is a virtual force based on our subjective sensory experiences — it’s really inertia trying to keep a body moving in a straight line. But leaving the physics aside, the term centrifugal certainly exists. But until you mentioned it, I’d not to my knowledge ever come across centrifical and would at once have marked it as the error it is. But it’s surprisingly common."

[VFX_Fenix]

Oh? So centrifical force, combined with the "standard issue" pixie dust, keeps that paintball firmly attached to the top of the straight part of the barrel so it can continue to pick up spin from the previously curved part of the barrel?

Yea.... Right.....

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.