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:

Is it really worth putting controlled bench test results up against his crono results and "game" on the field? Don’t you see that he suddenly implies that he’s done some tests?

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.

[frop]

I guess some people just weren't given as much to work with as the rest of us.

Why can't Darwin work any faster?

[TheTramp]

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?

You put your crono statement "up against" the bench test when you continued to argue against the bench test results when your only evidence was your qualitative observations while shooting at the crono and playing on the field.

It's pretty obvious that you were doing that and far from a "left field." Even I don't think you are so stupid that you don't see that. I see that the non-scientific type (just you really ) needs to pretend that he doesn't see the point of an argument so he doesn’t have to refute it. Not that I even made a real argument. I was mostly just making fun of you and your ridiculous need to cling to a hopeless argument.

[Evil Bob]

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.

Yes, there is something that prevents the ball from hitting the larger bore, its called "projectile exit velocity vs barrel transversal velocity". At 300fps, the ball is traveling around 200 miles per hour, how fast would a player need to be moving their arms to snap out and actually have a paintball strike the larger inner bore while firing? At 200 mph, how long is the paintball actually in the barrel and how big of a window of opportunity do we have to move the barrel sufficiently to make contact with the larger bore? Also keep in mind that the player is trying to hit a target with the final movement of the barrel to be aligned to the target, so there isn't going to be a great deal of speed in the transversal movement while the player is actually shooting at the target.

Would be cool to get one of those lexan barrels for testing such a hypothesis.

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.

Quite correct, the paintballs do spin, but not uniformly, the spinning is random based upon the location of the seams as the ball makes contact with the control bore on its journy through the barrel and its introduction to the outside environment. The only barrel system that has been able to uniformly spin the ball in the same direction is the Tippman "banana barrel" Flatline. The Z frame comes close, but its not been able to spin the balls as consistantly as the flatline does.

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...

There very well may be something here worth looking into.

Typically the ball, in a smooth bore barrel, will only contact the barrel at two points, usually where the ball's seam is the widest. This is where actual rifled barrels may present some benefit as there appears to be more points of contact as the ball travels through the control bore. I'd definitely like to see some testing on this theory.

Its very possible that 3 or more points of contact in the control bore will lessen spining like the magnetic top on the dual wire handle that alot of us kids in the 60's had. Its also highly possible that even a minute ammount of spining will help reduce the floating drag points on the rear of the ball as it travels toward the target. A variance of as little of 5 fps can mean a difference of missing by several inches at the intended point of impact, so it would be desireable to reduce/lessen the floating drag variable if possible.

The artical at AGP (the link was posted above) was very interesting to read through, everyone here please take the time to go through it, they present some interesting data regarding rifled barrels that may very well be worth investigating further.

-Evil Bob

[Miscue]

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

Let's review:

Miscue posted:


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.

You keep bringing this up and I do not understand why. Let's pretend that what I said is false. What does it imply? The ball can bounce around the barrel, yet the "rifling" can still achieve consist spin and such (which is questionable regardless)?

I omitted the possibility of the ball touching "a" side because it is ridiculous to acknowledge that the ball bounces around AND the rifling "works..." I'm surprised that you are trying to point out something to be "wrong," when if so implies something that hurts your case.

You can take what I said absolutely literally, and try to poke at something that was not what I had in mind - if you feel you've triumphed in some way by doing so, good for you. However, if you are talking about rifling - it is silly to consider the incidental contact that you are pointing out... as the way it is designed to work. How can that be? What I meant by "contact" was not this, although I agree there was some ambiguity. I was talking about a tongue-in-mouth "kiss," not a peck on the cheek "kiss." What I said was clear enough for a reasonable person to understand what I was getting at.

[Target Practice]

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.

I never misrepresented anything. It's not my fault you seemingly don't understand straight fact.

[hitech]

The article at AGP (the link was posted above) was very interesting to read through, everyone here please take the time to go through it, they present some interesting data regarding rifled barrels that may very well be worth investigating further.

I'd like to see some of his data. Regardless, 40 shots is hardly statistically significant. And that would invalidate his conclusions. However, IF he could get lots and lots of other people to gather the same data and they all came up with the same results it would begin to be statistically significant. But he is going to need a whole lot of people to even match TKs testing. And that testing had far different results.

[Mike Smith]

You do realize {from the APG article}:

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."

Obviously a PE is not qualified to test paintball barrels..., Right boys?

[Vex]

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."

It doesn't mean he knows how to make a paintball barrel. He should have studied up on it before comparing them to real guns, where rifiling actually works.
I guess if he were shooting snack crackers out of his barrels, we'd all have to duck for cover because they'd be super accurate and break on target at 75 yards

I suppose that Tom Kaye's professional credentials in the worlds of engineering and paintball don't mean squat, do they?

[Jack & Coke]

I am a registered Professional Engineer with the State of California.

In my Professional Opinion, he's full of it!

(regarding the idea that his "rifled" paintball barrels = longer distance and more accuracy)

[Target Practice]

You do realize {from the APG article}:

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."

Obviously a PE is not qualified to test paintball barrels..., Right boys?

He's the president of the goddamn marketing group. He does technical writing and marketing.

So, no, he is absolutely not qualified to test paintball barrels, boy.

[Miscue]

You do realize {from the APG article}:

"Robert Judson is a Registered Professional Engineer, with a BS and Masters in Engineering. In his early days as an Engineering Manager with PepsiCo, he conducted R&D testing and wrote technical papers. He has written articles for the AMI, Baking and Snack, Engineering News, etc. He is presently Executive VP with CMT, Inc., in Dallas, Texas, responsible for Food Plant Design and Construction, and --->president of Hammerhead Marketing Group LLC<-----."

Obviously a PE is not qualified to test paintball barrels..., Right boys?

What does it matter what his "qualifications" are? It just means he has less of an excuse to be a tool!

[magman007]

mike, give it up, all you are doing is bringing down everyone elses view of what you are trying to create for yourself of a reputation. you are clearly wrong. When some one takes a barrel, revolves it to the same speed as the rifiling would have on the ball, shoots photos throgh the lexan barrel at high speed, and shows the exit of the ball and how it was uniformly not effected, you must realize that you are refutably wrong. If rifiling truely did work, why doesnt everyone own one of these barrels? wouldnt tournament teams be using these to get a larger gain on another team?

Why arent armson barrels flying off the shelves? how about the hammerhead? why arent people using these if they are that much better?

why havnt other companies, who put alot of r&d into their barrels use this technique? why didnt this technique prove to be effective in 2 private tests?

I can tell that you are missinterpreting the words of tom, where he states that it has no major effect on the ball. By this he means, that it has no measurable effect or gain, there fore, no reason to use a rifled barrel.

Tom was one of the great innovators in the sport, if he found it had any gain vs. any thing else on the market, he would have implimented it, look at the marker designs and decide for yourself if he would have implimented the design.

Obviously, this Professional Engineer is making a farce out of his School, and im sure if they heard what he was claiming to be true, they would revoke his diplomas,

How about this fact? a paintball will fly just fine out of a large bore barrel, it will even fly fine out of a piece if pvc piping, with no measurable difference.

Ask simon stevens (aka manike) whom is certifiably a smarter man then the creator of these barrels, whom also designs and works for national paintball supply ( invarably one of the largest companies in the sport, also with the deepest pockets to make their markers have any inconcievable advantage over other markers) has done this pvc barrel test. and concluded that bore size is more of an efficiency issue than it is an accuracy issue.


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)

you may discredit me as another tk nut swinger, this is not the case. I do not use his products any more, i do not claim his word to be the word of god, but i do know when i can reasonably look at the evidence presented, and the testing completed, that i can get the same result through deductive reasoning, that it is correct.


Mike, you just want to believe something, and you have been proven wrong, more times than once in this thread, please conduct the tests, and prove them to us. that is the only way we will even give you a shred of credibility.


any one remember arkfear trying to tell us that cockers shot farther? or were more accurate?
ah the good ol days.


Chalk up your "belief" to be purely psychological. There are people invariably smarter than you, and the creator of this barrel system ( whom worked in food service? how does that make you a certifiable genious on paintball barrels, never the less aerodynamics?) in this industry whom have conducted far more testing then you can even dream of, and proven this to not be the case?

Also, i will have you know, that i am currently a student enrolled at Kansas State University, in the professional pilot program, with 2 physics classes and 3 aerodynamics classes under my belt already, i believe i have a firm stronghold on the properties of projectiles in flight.

thanks, but please, try again.

[Mike Smith]

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....

For specific mis-information:

Your theory to disprove my theory about the glass with water is once again, proven wrong.

No it wasn't magman007. In fact, all anyone has to do is put a drop of color in a glass and spin it. The water, aided by the color, clearly rotates in the direction of the spin. So much for your "vaulted" education. And I'll chalk this up as another intentional mis-representation.

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!

So, no, he is absolutely not qualified to test paintball barrels, boy.

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.

I suppose that Tom Kaye's professional credentials in the worlds of engineering and paintball don't mean squat, do they?

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.

In my Professional Opinion, he's full of it!

Oddly enough, Jack and Coke has the most coherant response. He didn't "color" his opinion with false or misleading information.

[Lohman446]

Mike, lets say this. If he wanted to, with those credentials, he could release a well written report complete with quantitative analysis on testing as to why his barrel works. He could show us the proof. Anyone seen that report?

[shartley]

“My beliefs are stronger than your facts.”

“Perception is truth, no matter if the facts say otherwise.”

“You can not change the mind that simply does not want to be changed….. without two car batteries and 6 mini-clips.”

ADDED: What really matters though is that if Hammerhead was correct, why do they use “we believe” so often to support their sales pitch? Why don’t they simply state facts?

I will tell you why… because they know they are not correct. And when/if they are confronted about what they post on their own site, they can always fall back on “We didn’t say it WAS that way, only that be BELIEVED it to be. It is up to the customer to determine what they believe.”