[cockerpunk]

same rig we used before, smaller sample size

dropped 8 rounds on to oak cutting board from 8 feet.

1 bounce

12.5% bounce rate

admittedly smaller sample size then i would have liked to use.

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 14 February 2009 - 08:50 PM

[panterajim]

do u still have enough rounds to do the dual chrono test

[cockerpunk]

panterajim, on Feb 14 2009, 08:55 PM, said:

do u still have enough rounds to do the dual chrono test

not currently

this was my only tube. if i had more i would ahve done the full 20 ball sample size as the other brittleness testing.

[Mr.Cool]

I'm kind of wondering if a rifled barrel would have any advanages with these over a regular paintball.

[Lucas]

Mr.Cool, on Feb 14 2009, 09:26 PM, said:

I'm kind of wondering if a rifled barrel would have any advanages with these over a regular paintball.

I don't follow what your saying?

Well a rifled barrell and paintballs dont work.... tippmann rifled barrel (supposadly) I don't see a difference with them at the field

And if your talking about a rifled barrell with the tiberious arms it would probably not work as well but maybe....

[Mr.Cool]

well i was thinking that with the fins they would sort of spin like a football from the rifled barrel

[Snipez4664]

Mr.Cool, on Feb 14 2009, 09:38 PM, said:

well i was thinking that with the fins they would sort of spin like a football from the rifled barrel

They already do. No advantage.

[MasterMind88]

12.5% is rather dissapointing at only eight feet.

[Weigel21]

1 bounce out of eight really isn't that bad.

MasterMind88, try this test with Monster paintballs and see if you get any breaks. If you get just one I'd be shocked.

[cockerpunk]

MasterMind88, on Feb 15 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

12.5% is rather dissapointing at only eight feet.

actually that is quite brittle, assuming that percent stays close at the desired sample size of 20. compare that to about cooled silver, or regular gold in terms of brittleness.

more then anything this test just shows that they will break at an acceptable rate and wont just bounce off everything.

[Leafy]

is anyone else already thinking of sanding the front for an even better bounce chance? if you had more cp I'd say try that and see if it improved the breakage.

[Evil Fingers]

Sanding the Front of what?

[Leafy]

Evil Fingers, on Feb 20 2009, 06:12 PM, said:

Sanding the Front of what?

of the round. like where the paint is. just to see how brittle you can actually get the front of one of them.

[warhawk224]

I worry that if you sanded the fronts your going to mess with the aerodynamic profile

[Leafy]

warhawk224, on Feb 22 2009, 06:58 PM, said:

I worry that if you sanded the fronts your going to mess with the aerodynamic profile

you're not gonna take off that much material, you'd use like 1500 grit and only take off a few thousandths.

[Toriphilewill]

Leafy, on Feb 18 2009, 12:37 PM, said:

is anyone else already thinking of sanding the front for an even better bounce chance? if you had more cp I'd say try that and see if it improved the breakage.

87.5% of the dropped rounds broke. This is not bad considering the sampling size was only 8. But you want to sand the round to INCREASE the bounce chance? Maybe it is just the way you worded it. I think your idea would work, but the number of possible failures would outweigh the benefits. Especially at the cost ($1/round) of testing the breakage, as well as the flight after sanding, sanding inconsistencies, etc.

After dropping the round, was it possible to measure the shell thickness? Is the shell the same thickness in the front, as well as the back? This could give some hard #'s, without paying alot for these rounds.

[Leafy]

yeah I mean break chance.

[Leftystrikesback]

MasterMind88, on Feb 14 2009, 08:45 PM, said:

12.5% is rather dissapointing at only eight feet.

This is better breakage results than any of the DXS paint cockerpunk tested at room temp:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pym...HdSU9LwXkxMkESA

I assume this test was also done at room temp, I can't imagine you putting these great rounds in the fridge, or standing outside and dropping all these Smaller sample, but still great news.

This post has been edited by Leftystrikesback: 23 February 2009 - 12:59 AM

[cockerpunk]

yeah, the sample size is not comparable in terms of the standard test we did, but it shows that they will break under normal circumstances.

when we get more ill complete the full test for true comparison.

[Toriphilewill]

cockerpunk, on Feb 23 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

yeah, the sample size is not comparable in terms of the standard test we did, but it shows that they will break under normal circumstances.

when we get more ill complete the full test for true comparison.

I've searched the forums, but couldn't find the brittleness tests you are referring to. *Edit: I passed leftystrikesback's post, and missed the google doc. Any reference to the google docs in a punkworks sticky?* Maybe I am just searching in the wrong places/words.

Anyway, aside from measuring the number of bounces out of X balls, have you tried to establish a correlation with shell thickness to your tests. I just wonder if a micrometer measurement of the thickness would provide another level of data. I know the formulation/materials of the p-balls should have some say as far as brittleness, but these are company secrets. I only ask BC those tiberius rounds are expensive, and to do a large sample might be a waste of money.

This post has been edited by Toriphilewill: 24 February 2009 - 03:35 PM