[Poe]

Jack Wood, on Dec 12 2008, 04:05 AM, said:

...
I don't want to give too much away at this point, but this "bounce" we saw was in an Ego.............

Unfortunately I didn't have a Geo with the same window cut in the side to do a comparison. But I have a suspicion that you would not see this effect on a Geo.............
...

Jack Wood, on Dec 13 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

...
"If" we could get rid of the bouce and concentrated shear, then you would surely see less breaks, and then the next mode of failure would have to be the power pulse on its own.

What we need to do is remove the bounce issue, if at all possible, and see if that further reduces pure breaks in the barrel.
...

You eluded to a theory on why they start bouncing and I hate to put you on the spot, but is there any chance you could elaborate or post video of the chambering action? ...or if someone could point me to a site with Geo/Ego differences...?

The only thing I could think of is the way the air is expelled, breech diameter or slack between detent and bolt.

[Jack Wood]

cockerpunk, on Dec 14 2008, 01:17 AM, said:

Lord Odin, on Dec 13 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

CP and Bryce, in your barrel break test, did the bore size affect where the ball broke in the barrel? Or were they always similar?

thats what i was saying before, in all our bores we got the breaks right at the breach of the barrel.

That would definitely suggest loading fracture as the cause of break from everything that I have seen so far.

Jack

[Jack Wood]

Poe, on Dec 14 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

Jack Wood, on Dec 12 2008, 04:05 AM, said:

...
I don't want to give too much away at this point, but this "bounce" we saw was in an Ego.............

Unfortunately I didn't have a Geo with the same window cut in the side to do a comparison. But I have a suspicion that you would not see this effect on a Geo.............
...

Jack Wood, on Dec 13 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

...
"If" we could get rid of the bouce and concentrated shear, then you would surely see less breaks, and then the next mode of failure would have to be the power pulse on its own.

What we need to do is remove the bounce issue, if at all possible, and see if that further reduces pure breaks in the barrel.
...

You eluded to a theory on why they start bouncing and I hate to put you on the spot, but is there any chance you could elaborate or post video of the chambering action? ...or if someone could point me to a site with Geo/Ego differences...?

The only thing I could think of is the way the air is expelled, breech diameter or slack between detent and bolt.

Poe, there are other factors that effect the initial condition/position of the ball at time zero. We have more work to do on this to determin "exactly" what causes this condition, but we have a good idea. Detent has nothing to do with it. This is purely what is happening at the millisecond before and after the power pulse strikes the ball.

Jack

[cockerpunk]

Jack Wood, on Dec 15 2008, 06:18 AM, said:

cockerpunk, on Dec 14 2008, 01:17 AM, said:

Lord Odin, on Dec 13 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

CP and Bryce, in your barrel break test, did the bore size affect where the ball broke in the barrel? Or were they always similar?

thats what i was saying before, in all our bores we got the breaks right at the breach of the barrel.

That would definitely suggest loading fracture as the cause of break from everything that I have seen so far.

Jack

yup that was my conclusion as well.

[Jack Wood]

cockerpunk, on Dec 15 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

Jack Wood, on Dec 15 2008, 06:18 AM, said:

cockerpunk, on Dec 14 2008, 01:17 AM, said:

Lord Odin, on Dec 13 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

CP and Bryce, in your barrel break test, did the bore size affect where the ball broke in the barrel? Or were they always similar?

thats what i was saying before, in all our bores we got the breaks right at the breach of the barrel.

That would definitely suggest loading fracture as the cause of break from everything that I have seen so far.

Jack

yup that was my conclusion as well.

So, if that is the case, what are your revised conclusions of the test? If all the breaks you had were loading fracture failures, what does that mean to the underbore/overbore/matched arguments? You would have to say that if all breaks were loading fractures, all you proved was underboring, overboring and matching all yield the same results as far as Pure barrel breaks per number of shots fired. Would you not?

[Jack Wood]

Hoping for another clip up today of a loading failure. Certainly one of the more severe failures, and certainly not just a nick or a clip. But very interesting, non-the-less.

I am sorry if it is not what you want to see, but we are still evaluating the more contentious and interesting stuff.

Keep an eye on Youtube and my google vids location later.

Troy, I mentioned the H264 compression, and the guys said it is nothing to do with our compression, it is purely what Youtube and Google do in their compression of the file that we upload. It is their shoddy codec, not ours. Our files are very lightly compressed, but TY and google just ream it out after we upload it.

Anyone know any other sites where we could host these large files for download? Gordon, do you want to talk to Mike and see if he is interested in hosting them for us? If he gives me a place to upload them, that would be sweet. They are going to be around 30-100Mb each one.

This post has been edited by Jack Wood: 15 December 2008 - 11:06 AM

[brycelarson]

Jack Wood, on Dec 15 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

So, if that is the case, what are your revised conclusions of the test? If all the breaks you had were loading fracture failures, what does that mean to the underbore/overbore/matched arguments? You would have to say that if all breaks were loading fractures, all you proved was underboring, overboring and matching all yield the same results as far as Pure barrel breaks per number of shots fired. Would you not?

My conclusion from the barrel break test all along is that there is no statistically dignificant difference in barrel breaks going from .006 overbore to .008 underbore. Since I do have data showing that there is good reason to undrebore - and the only reason that I've heard for overboring (fewer breaks) seems to be false - then I choose to underbore. So, no, this doesn't cause me to revise my conclusions - in fact, it backs them up.

Deciding that neither under nor overbore barrels have a likely pure barrel break in 3k+ shots each means to me that bore size has very little, if anything to do with barrel breaks. Therefore I will choose barrels based on different criteria - efficiency (underbore wins), consistancy (underbore wins) and accuracy (test upcoming).

Now, why did we have breaks? I think it's the loader.

[cockerpunk]

Jack Wood, on Dec 15 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

cockerpunk, on Dec 15 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

Jack Wood, on Dec 15 2008, 06:18 AM, said:

cockerpunk, on Dec 14 2008, 01:17 AM, said:

Lord Odin, on Dec 13 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

CP and Bryce, in your barrel break test, did the bore size affect where the ball broke in the barrel? Or were they always similar?

thats what i was saying before, in all our bores we got the breaks right at the breach of the barrel.

That would definitely suggest loading fracture as the cause of break from everything that I have seen so far.

Jack

yup that was my conclusion as well.

So, if that is the case, what are your revised conclusions of the test? If all the breaks you had were loading fracture failures, what does that mean to the underbore/overbore/matched arguments? You would have to say that if all breaks were loading fractures, all you proved was underboring, overboring and matching all yield the same results as far as Pure barrel breaks per number of shots fired. Would you not?

if loading failures are so much more common then pure barrel breaks - to the level where i can shoot 10,000 rounds without one, then what does it matter? esp when 3,000 of those round were though a pretty hefty underbore, with very brittle paint.

what the test shows is that there isn't a large correlation [edited by bryce] between bore size and breaks. overboring wont measurable prevent barrel breaks, probably because [edited by bryce] most barrel breaks are not caused by the barrel itself.

I’m with bryce, the loading fracture theory fully supports the results we got in our testing, almost too [edited by bryce] well. the test we did really just showed that the current model we were using (that bore size is the largest factor) was simply wrong. now we have a theory that makes a lot more sense, and matches with a far larger variety of the evidence presented.

ill toss a phone call mikes way right now about uploading space.

This post has been edited by brycelarson: 15 December 2008 - 01:00 PM

[Lord Odin]

Jack Wood, on Dec 15 2008, 10:01 AM, said:

Hoping for another clip up today of a loading failure. Certainly one of the more severe failures, and certainly not just a nick or a clip. But very interesting, non-the-less.

I am sorry if it is not what you want to see, but we are still evaluating the more contentious and interesting stuff.

Keep an eye on Youtube and my google vids location later.

Troy, I mentioned the H264 compression, and the guys said it is nothing to do with our compression, it is purely what Youtube and Google do in their compression of the file that we upload. It is their shoddy codec, not ours. Our files are very lightly compressed, but TY and google just ream it out after we upload it.

Anyone know any other sites where we could host these large files for download? Gordon, do you want to talk to Mike and see if he is interested in hosting them for us? If he gives me a place to upload them, that would be sweet. They are going to be around 30-100Mb each one.

I don't have any personal experience with it but you can try Mediafire for free file hosting.

This post has been edited by Lord Odin: 15 December 2008 - 01:13 PM

[Troy]

Jack Wood, on Dec 15 2008, 10:01 AM, said:

Anyone know any other sites where we could host these large files for download? Gordon, do you want to talk to Mike and see if he is interested in hosting them for us? If he gives me a place to upload them, that would be sweet. They are going to be around 30-100Mb each one.

If Willie/Mike/Anyone from TechPb wants me to tell them how to get all set up to do it himself with an investment of less then $100 and about 10 mins I'd be happy to.

If asked real nice, I may be able to convince my business partner to let me do it on one of our servers... but he's had some bad experience with hosting stuff in the past so I'd have to sweet talk him a bit.

I think it would be a better solution overall if TechPb just started hosting their own videos at a much better quality then youtube or google did. The new H264 compression allows for some INCREDIBLE videos at fairly tame bit rates. Definitely something to look into.

I think I'll pm Willie about it actually...

[cockerpunk]

willie is your best bet for sure. i liked the youtube videos.

one of my friend who hates techpb messaged me on aim with the link.

i got to rub it in his face - lol.

[italian mobster]

wow lol this is an in depth conversation

[Jack Wood]

So, we are setting up a "Learning Channel" on Planet Eclipse Youtube site. As well as slo mo stuff it will have educational stuff for users to do with our guns, like maintenance, break-down, settings, etc.

The location is www.youtube.com/planeteclipsetv

We are going to put the Slow Mo stuff here for now, and hopefully on my google videos site so that you can download it for other players.

Here is the latest one: http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=j9WJoWtjAeA

Notice how the broken ball levitates in the feed? Why?

[moyster14]

Jack Wood, on Dec 16 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

Notice how the broken ball levitates in the feed? Why?

With the ball being cracked in the feed tube, I could see the ball hanging up a little, but you would think the loader should power through it. Which loader are you using?

Hmmmm....

[Snipez4664]

Jack Wood, on Dec 16 2008, 11:19 AM, said:

So, we are setting up a "Learning Channel" on Planet Eclipse Youtube site. As well as slo mo stuff it will have educational stuff for users to do with our guns, like maintenance, break-down, settings, etc.

The location is www.youtube.com/planeteclipsetv

We are going to put the Slow Mo stuff here for now, and hopefully on my google videos site so that you can download it for other players.

Here is the latest one: http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=j9WJoWtjAeA

Notice how the broken ball levitates in the feed? Why?

It actually begins to move down, stops, reverses, then feeds in tandem with the other ball that breaks. It looks to me like those balls were already in interference in the stack - the levitation would be a function of their interaction rather than feed tube interaction or blowback, which are the other possibilities.

the question is - is the jostling in the stack causing the failure, or the loader paddles. The self-replenishing-spring-loaded-clip design has taken the industry a long way, but these types of failures could indicate the problems that can arise when a large force is placed on an inconsistent stack.

[Jack Wood]

I can't see how it can be blowback. Have you seen the size of the vent we gave that body!!

This was shot with a Rotor, or a Halo with magna board. I would have to check the data sheets to confirm, and I am at home at the mo. After all our testing there was no sign of any paint inside either hopper or cone, suggesting that it was not broken on the paddles in the loader, but more likely in the stack.

[Troy]

I'm wondering if the balls are forming a temporary wedge in the feedneck. One ball is pushed up, which pushes the ball in exactly the right angle to wedge it in between the feedneck and the next ball temporarily, then the force of the loader overcomes the wedged ball.

So Jack, when are you going to make a feedneck out of lexan?

[brycelarson]

Jack Wood, on Dec 16 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

Notice how the broken ball levitates in the feed? Why?

what was the ROF on that vid? Maybe it's due to odd air flow created by the ball leaving the barrel - combined with the missing side of the breech. can you grab the gun and do the balled up kleenex in the feed neck test for blow-back or suction?

edit:
other people posted while I was watching the vid again... crtainly looks like it was stuck to the ball above it. But the blowback may look like that as well

This post has been edited by brycelarson: 16 December 2008 - 12:38 PM

[Poe]

Troy, on Dec 16 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

I'm wondering if the balls are forming a temporary wedge in the feedneck. One ball is pushed up, which pushes the ball in exactly the right angle to wedge it in between the feedneck and the next ball temporarily, then the force of the loader overcomes the wedged ball.

So Jack, when are you going to make a feedneck out of lexan?

My thoughts exactly... although I was thinking the bolt induced spin might also contribute somewhat.

Edit: Actually now that I look at it... It looks like the second ball is getting heavily rotated against the side of the feed neck. During this time the third ball (first broken ball) is where the bottom edge of the hopper is located. Does that look right?

This post has been edited by Poe: 16 December 2008 - 12:56 PM

[brycelarson]

ok, I wateched it again - it was so simple we all looked past it. The ball that hovers is the broken ball - which means that when it broke it prob stuck to the ball above.

why the loader doesn't shove it down - I don't know, I don't know how this particular loader detects that it needs to feed.