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"?
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.
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.
Edited by Jack Wood, 17 February 2009 - 11:53 AM.