[cockerpunk]

yeah we have some backspin stuff lined up at longer ranges. im not really seeing a connection between this and that though ...

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 16 February 2009 - 11:49 AM

[wgp2002]

i know you looked at bolts a while back but would a venturi vs other style bolts have a different effect on these? and would a rifled barrel work better for these?

[brycelarson]

I'm going to say that the bolt isn't going to matter - you're basically blowing into a cup - there's already a large pocket in front of the bolt when the air comes out - so I can't imagine open v venturi really mattering.

As for rifled barrels - there's really no point. I suppose a barrel with the same twist in the same direction may work - but anything else is just going to interfere with the spin that's designed to start up when the round leaves the barrel.

[GrenadeMaster]

brycelarson, on Feb 15 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

I'm one of those guys that after 10+ years playing paintball has a really good sense of when they other guys can actually hit me. I had to re-adjust a bit when the flatline came out - but not too much since they're going so slow at range. I'll be the guy standing in the open just outside of reliable shooting range in a game yelling at the other team - because it's fun. Mix in two guys on that other team hauling Tiberius guns and I'll have to start to re-think that.

Hehe... I do that too, except I find it fun to sing really obnoxious songs... such as the barney song... I also try to get just close enough I can catch them every now and then, then just pop in my feed tube on the phantom and return fire! I have also learned to hate evil... as it is very hard to catch intact.

But I only have 6 years of experience...

[cockerpunk]

wgp2002, on Feb 16 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

i know you looked at bolts a while back but would a venturi vs other style bolts have a different effect on these? and would a rifled barrel work better for these?

there is alot of talk about rifled barrels and these, and i have been waiting until we can get the highspeed going on these because i wonder alot.

in mind mind, the fins dont cause the spin while the paintball is IN the barrel.

the fins impart there spin when the ball is flying through the ambient air.

now, i want to get the highspeed to confirm that, but that is what i think.

[licustoms]

While using Tiberius First Strike rounds:

.....Will they work with a rifled barrel?
.....Which direction do the fins turn in? (Right or Left)
.....What angle are the fins cut at?
.....What angle and direction are most rifled barrels grooves? (for paintball)
.....Will the rounds work better with a rifled barrel?
.....Has a rifled barrel been tested with the rounds?
.....Does a smooth bore barrel work better with the rounds?
.....What sized barrel bore work best with the rounds?

Just a few questions to add to your tests if at all possible.

One other thing that I was wondering about is how do the magazines work with these rounds and which magazines work with them as I may end up making a bolt action magazine fed cocker to work with the rounds - just for fun.

I am new to the PunkWorks section of the TechPB Forums however I am interested in contributing to this section as must as possible. If you guys need anything to which I may be able to help with just let me know (you guys = CockerPunk & BryceLarson)

[licustoms]

cockerpunk, on Feb 16 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

wgp2002, on Feb 16 2009, 12:57 PM, said:

i know you looked at bolts a while back but would a venturi vs other style bolts have a different effect on these? and would a rifled barrel work better for these?

there is alot of talk about rifled barrels and these, and i have been waiting until we can get the highspeed going on these because i wonder alot.

in mind mind, the fins dont cause the spin while the paintball is IN the barrel.

the fins impart there spin when the ball is flying through the ambient air.

now, i want to get the highspeed to confirm that, but that is what i think.

I predict that if the Tiberius First Strike rounds do spin in the barrel that it is because there is just enough space within the barrel to allow the movement in a spiraling motion. However, I have not seen the rounds in person yet so I do not know for sure if the rounds' fins have an angle on them or if they are straight in line with the flight path. If they are straight then I predict no spin in the barrel and if they are angled then there might be a slight spin signature within the barrel if there is enough space around the round within the barrel to allow it (I would think that it depends on how much pressure or squeeze there is on the round from the barrel.)

Otherwise there would only be spin once the round exits the barrel and again if the rounds' fins are angled there would be spin once in the air otherwise if they are straight there would be spin due to ambient temperature (such as warm air rising from the ground and cool air dropping from the air) as well as any trace of wind.

As far as magazine design goes for these rounds - there are real examples of other firearms (lethal sorts) that have magazines that the Q-loader resembles that I believe would work great for these if there were only small modifications done to them as well as to the breach of any paintball marker... just some other thoughts that came to my mind.

[Toriphilewill]

GrenadeMaster, on Feb 16 2009, 04:04 PM, said:

brycelarson, on Feb 15 2009, 12:40 PM, said:

I'm one of those guys that after 10+ years playing paintball has a really good sense of when they other guys can actually hit me. I had to re-adjust a bit when the flatline came out - but not too much since they're going so slow at range. I'll be the guy standing in the open just outside of reliable shooting range in a game yelling at the other team - because it's fun. Mix in two guys on that other team hauling Tiberius guns and I'll have to start to re-think that.

Hehe... I do that too, except I find it fun to sing really obnoxious songs... such as the barney song... I also try to get just close enough I can catch them every now and then, then just pop in my feed tube on the phantom and return fire! I have also learned to hate evil... as it is very hard to catch intact.

But I only have 6 years of experience...

I like picking up those rounds that happen to fall at my feet, and try to return them to their owner.

[Jack Wood]

Jack Wood, on Feb 16 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

Gordon, what are your thoughts now on going back and looking at backspin bolts at longer ranges? Considering that at 75 foot the FS round yielded almost identical longituninal gains as the backsping bolts which you condemned as "statistically insignificant"?

cockerpunk, on Feb 16 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

yeah we have some backspin stuff lined up at longer ranges. im not really seeing a connection between this and that though ...

The connection is that you openly dismissed backspin bolts as not making a significant difference at 75 foot to added range. Yet here we are looking at the FS round that displayed the same statistical difference of Y-axis strike-point on the target at 75 foot with a round that is claimed to shoot 50% (or something) further and we're jumping all over it.

I just think it would be doing the backspin sytems a real injustice to not have the opportunity to be tested in the same way as the FS rounds.

[StandingCow]

I think the more distant the target the more these new rounds will shine. They are a good first step toward better accuracy. since markers have reached their limit.

This post has been edited by StandingCow: 17 February 2009 - 10:01 AM

[brycelarson]

Jack Wood, on Feb 17 2009, 04:03 AM, said:

I just think it would be doing the backspin sytems a real injustice to not have the opportunity to be tested in the same way as the FS rounds.

I agree - and this is the first thing we're going to look at with the high speed camera. If the backspin DOES spin the ball - then we'll see it. If the ball isn't spinning backwards we don't need to do the shooting at distances - right?

[cockerpunk]

Jack Wood, on Feb 17 2009, 05:03 AM, said:

Jack Wood, on Feb 16 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

Gordon, what are your thoughts now on going back and looking at backspin bolts at longer ranges? Considering that at 75 foot the FS round yielded almost identical longituninal gains as the backsping bolts which you condemned as "statistically insignificant"?

cockerpunk, on Feb 16 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

yeah we have some backspin stuff lined up at longer ranges. im not really seeing a connection between this and that though ...

The connection is that you openly dismissed backspin bolts as not making a significant difference at 75 foot to added range. Yet here we are looking at the FS round that displayed the same statistical difference of Y-axis strike-point on the target at 75 foot with a round that is claimed to shoot 50% (or something) further and we're jumping all over it.

I just think it would be doing the backspin sytems a real injustice to not have the opportunity to be tested in the same way as the FS rounds.

no, i think your missing the comparison.

the accuracy vector is better on these guy by a fair margin, the Y position is not. the extra range here (if any) is going to come from it being higher speed at any given Z point.

backspin bolts will get there chance again, we have that one in the works.

[Snipez4664]

Why doesn't someone bust out kinematics + algebra on the one inch difference at 50 feet?

You can calculate the velocity difference and lift force in that manner...

I don't have the distances (y,z) and initial velocities in front of me but that should be all you need to ballpark it.

[brycelarson]

Snipez4664, on Feb 17 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

Why doesn't someone bust out kinematics + algebra on the one inch difference at 50 feet?

You can calculate the velocity difference and lift force in that manner...

I don't have the distances (y,z) and initial velocities in front of me but that should be all you need to ballpark it.

way beyond me - but I think tomorrow I'll be able to do the same setup again and get video of the paintballs on the way. We should get a good idea about how much less the First Strike rounds have slowed by comparing the total flight time of the two projectiles. We know starting speed for both.

[Spitlebug]

^^ Bryce you didn't really answer my questions here:
http://www.techpb.com/forum/index.php?show...st&p=189640


I think, when you guys are publishing your Google docs you are omitting important data. At least cross link the Google doc with the Youtube video and vice versa (as you typically do with the video, but not with the document).

This post has been edited by Spitlebug: 17 February 2009 - 11:19 AM

[brycelarson]

Spitlebug, on Feb 16 2009, 06:16 AM, said:

Bryce, how does your coordinate system work? I assume that 0,0 is dead center and positive X values go to the right, negative X values to the left. The same with positive Y values being up and negative values being down? Is this just an assumed coordinate system and what is the unit of measure (inches)?

I think these are important if one wanted to plot out each trajectory. Looking at these in a three dimensional view may also be important factors considering that the Tiberius paintballs may fly in a different manner than a conventional paintball.

yes, center of the target (red square) is 0,0 - right is +x, left is -x, up is +y, down is -y in inches.

sorry about that.

Spitlebug, on Feb 17 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

^^ Bryce you didn't really answer my questions here:
http://www.techpb.com/forum/index.php?show...st&p=189640


I think, when you guys are publishing your Google docs you are omitting important data. At least cross link the Google doc with the Youtube video and vice versa (as you typically do with the video, but not with the document).

yeah, I guess I sometimes mistake how things are organized. I see this forum as the center of our testing - so I put a link to everything from here - but I sometime forget to cross reference from inside those locations.

and I answered your other post -but here is it again: inches, left to right is -x to +x up to down is +y to -y. center of board is 0,0.

[Jack Wood]

cockerpunk, on Feb 17 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

Jack Wood, on Feb 17 2009, 05:03 AM, said:

Jack Wood, on Feb 16 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

Gordon, what are your thoughts now on going back and looking at backspin bolts at longer ranges? Considering that at 75 foot the FS round yielded almost identical longituninal gains as the backsping bolts which you condemned as "statistically insignificant"?

cockerpunk, on Feb 16 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

yeah we have some backspin stuff lined up at longer ranges. im not really seeing a connection between this and that though ...

The connection is that you openly dismissed backspin bolts as not making a significant difference at 75 foot to added range. Yet here we are looking at the FS round that displayed the same statistical difference of Y-axis strike-point on the target at 75 foot with a round that is claimed to shoot 50% (or something) further and we're jumping all over it.

I just think it would be doing the backspin sytems a real injustice to not have the opportunity to be tested in the same way as the FS rounds.

no, i think your missing the comparison.

the accuracy vector is better on these guy by a fair margin, the Y position is not. the extra range here (if any) is going to come from it being higher speed at any given Z point.

backspin bolts will get there chance again, we have that one in the works.

Sorry, talking at cross purposes. I am not refering to comparison in the product, but more a comparison on your ethics of treating the data.

Obviously the difference in the FS rounds Y readings are going to be down to increased velocity at target, and not because of any lift characteristics.

I was just making a point that these rounds OBVIOUSLY do something different. They OBVIOUSLY travel faster at target. That OBVIOUSNESS makes you want to test at longer ranges regardless of the fact that the Y increase was only a very small amount.

With the backspin bolts there was NO OBVIOUS difference between a standard bolt and the backspin bolt at 75 feet. The difference in Y values was only an average of an inch (exactly the same as the FS round at the same range!) and the ball flight was not OBVIOUSLY different between the 2 types of bolt shots at 75 feet, so you dismissed the 1 inch as statistically insignificant.

Now, all I am saying is think about how your scatter-gun approach to data collection could be perceived as double standards. And how maybe in the backspin bolt test, because you believed 1 inch at 75 foot was statistically insignificant, you may have been quick to condemn a principle because you didn't get the instant mind-blowing flashing lights eureka results you believe should have been visible.

I'm not trying to compare the products, more your handling of them.

Quote

I agree - and this is the first thing we're going to look at with the high speed camera. If the backspin DOES spin the ball - then we'll see it. If the ball isn't spinning backwards we don't need to do the shooting at distances - right?

No. I don't agree. This is exactly the same dangerous predicament as I was talking about above.

The Hammerhead guy said that they get better range and accuracy out of their barrel, and it does not produce backspin, as you can see on their HSV footage.

Just because the ball doesn't come out of a barrel with a perfect backspin from an Alien does not mean that it is not conditioning the flight of the ball in some way. Just because someone mistakenly uses incorrect terminology to describe what happens inside their gun does not mean that that gun does not produce a different result to another gun. Does that make sense?

Someone may say their gun produces backspin and stabalizes the flight using gyroscopic effects to increase range and accuracy. Their gun may not spin the ball fast enough or in the correct orientation to produce lift or gyroscopic stability in the normally percieved way, but does that necessarily mean their gun does not shoot further, flatter or more accurately? Just because they failed to correctly interpret the empirical results they were seeing?

You just need to be careful that you don't write-off a test before it has even started because the results you see do not follow the logical progression you are expecting. Putting the whole in the bottom of the bolt may not produce backspin in the conventional sense, but may increase range and accuracy. First, find out if it does increase range and accuracy. Then try and work out why. It may have nothing to do with spin at all, and all these years it has just been a mis-understood and mis-represented principle.

This post has been edited by Jack Wood: 17 February 2009 - 11:53 AM

[brycelarson]

I certainly hear what you're saying Jack - and we do intend to do additional backspin testing. We've got an indoor location for this spring and we're going to shoot them out to 150'

Any obviousness that I'm talking about is the obvious difference visible to the eye of the trajectory of these rounds. We shot a ton of paint out of backspin bolts - both cooper T's and Gordon's homebrew version. We shot them outdoors at a range of 150' and indoors at 50' in neither case was there anything obvious to the naked eye about how they flew.

You've shot the perfect strike rounds - you know what I mean about seeing something obviously different.

Our fist baskspin test was outdoors - we were testing the claim on Cooper-T's website that you get "150 of extra range" - which should have resulted in something really obvious to the naked eye - like the flatline. I've shot and been shot by backspin systems that work - Apex and Flatline. we first tested to see if the backspin bolts had anything like that kind of effect on the ball. Our methods were imprecise - it was only our second test. However, if the results were going to be as good as the manufacturer claimed - then we should have seen it - we did not. Proponents of the backspin bolts told us that we were testing wrong - that we were using the wrong size bores, the wrong bolts, wrong barrel lengths, were testing in wind, the moon wasn't in the right phase etc. So, we re-formulated the test in an indoor location with much better control. We had people who had used the cooper extensively tell us exactly how it would work best. They said, overbored, short barrel.

Our test showed about .90" increase in the mean y impact location at 50'. Now, is this something? maybe. However, we DID shoot at 150' and didn't see anything with the same barrel setup.

[cockerpunk]

i think between the high speed, the CFD analysis im doing, and the Y impacts at 125 feet we should be able to finally put that one to rest, either way.

every great scientists is wrong more often then he is right, i have no issue with keeping this one open for discussion. being the club that is wrong makes for a good good club, Rutherford, Einstein, Pasteur, Edison, and Tesla.

the big question, and one me and jack hae talked about, is if we see no backspin, and yet we still have an elevated Y impact. what then?

This post has been edited by cockerpunk: 17 February 2009 - 12:35 PM

[brycelarson]

elves, well, elves or gnomes...