Jump to content


Photo

125 foot accuracy test


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
74 replies to this topic

#51 Snipez4664

Snipez4664

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 March 2009 - 08:22 PM

i have a feeling that you could shoot the first strike rounds through pvc pipe of fairly close bore match and still have it shoot mint, in other words I'd hypothesize that the barrel has no effect on the fs rounds (ie even the triable barrel would shoot them nice)


I suspect this is almost completely incorrect! EDIT: and the tribal test results suggest I am right.



I have a serious problem with the characterization of vortex shedding in the video. The roundness of the paint won't save you to any degree worth mentioning...the vortex shedding is sequential, not simultaneous, so there is ALWAYS a net force. This leads to a random walk, no matter what you do, and you can in fact predict a gaussian distribution (it was done once upon a time in deep blue) for the pattern. I make this a point of contention, because if you think off-roundness has something to do with it, your natural inclination is to expect rifling to make a difference. However, if you look at the shift in surface velocities induced by even the most aggressive rifling, its trivial to see that vortex shedding should still be random and with an angle that is still essentially perpendicular to ball flight (bad!).

This reinforces the notion that when launching imperfect spheres (see: baseball, golf, ping pong, tennis), spin is key not only to trajectory (Magnus effect), but possibly to precision as well - if you control the spin variable not only do you control the magnus forces, but perhaps you create node for the vortices to preferentially shed from, at least along one axis.

Edited by Snipez4664, 25 March 2009 - 08:42 PM.

Posted Image

This post brought to you by: Lurker
Owner/Operator/Lead Engineer - Lurker Paintball
Check out our products at Lurker Paintball

#52 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,121 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 25 March 2009 - 08:56 PM

i have a feeling that you could shoot the first strike rounds through pvc pipe of fairly close bore match and still have it shoot mint, in other words I'd hypothesize that the barrel has no effect on the fs rounds (ie even the triable barrel would shoot them nice)


I suspect this is almost completely incorrect! EDIT: and the tribal test results suggest I am right.



I have a serious problem with the characterization of vortex shedding in the video. The roundness of the paint won't save you to any degree worth mentioning...the vortex shedding is sequential, not simultaneous, so there is ALWAYS a net force. This leads to a random walk, no matter what you do, and you can in fact predict a gaussian distribution (it was done once upon a time in deep blue) for the pattern. I make this a point of contention, because if you think off-roundness has something to do with it, your natural inclination is to expect rifling to make a difference. However, if you look at the shift in surface velocities induced by even the most aggressive rifling, its trivial to see that vortex shedding should still be random and with an angle that is still essentially perpendicular to ball flight (bad!).

This reinforces the notion that when launching imperfect spheres (see: baseball, golf, ping pong, tennis), spin is key not only to trajectory (Magnus effect), but possibly to precision as well - if you control the spin variable not only do you control the magnus forces, but perhaps you create node for the vortices to preferentially shed from, at least along one axis.


well number 1 - im not gonna try to teach a fluid mechanics course in 10 minutes. i tried to do this video with more detail but it went long, hence the annotation near the end. there is only so much you cram in there and that 14 year olds will understand.


secondly, yes, i understand and agree that you are right, at any given TIME, there is a net force. but, if we look though time, and sum the forces, in theory, they should even out. or even out within a normal distribution.

however, if we are shooting a less then perfect sphere, then the sum of forces though time wont be as normal. or more accurately will lead to a larger normal. this is because the random walk will not truly be random, it will change depending on the profile of the boundary layer. when im thinking non spherical im thinking elliptical or even dimples.

as for spin, we have seen its effects for the most part. and after we have some high speed, we should be able to see its effects better.

i get what your saying, i do. maybe if people have alot of questions, then i will do a video purely on vortex phenomena. i tried to make it as simple as possible, not confuse people.

Edited by cockerpunk, 25 March 2009 - 09:03 PM.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#53 Snipez4664

Snipez4664

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 March 2009 - 09:38 PM

I understand that constraint, which is why I posted here rather than crafting a video response. The important note is that even if you had THE perfect paintball, with NO spins or course deflections or wind whatsoever, you'd still get inaccuracies that are a majority of the ones you reported. Obviously deformities lead to large confounding forces - ball quality and gun cleanliness are probably the biggest things your average player can control.
Posted Image

This post brought to you by: Lurker
Owner/Operator/Lead Engineer - Lurker Paintball
Check out our products at Lurker Paintball

#54 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,121 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 25 March 2009 - 10:21 PM

I understand that constraint, which is why I posted here rather than crafting a video response. The important note is that even if you had THE perfect paintball, with NO spins or course deflections or wind whatsoever, you'd still get inaccuracies that are a majority of the ones you reported. Obviously deformities lead to large confounding forces - ball quality and gun cleanliness are probably the biggest things your average player can control.


yup! thats why i suggest high quality paint.

i mean your going to get a distribution under even the best conditions. but getting good round paint that is clean and a consistent setup thats about the best you can do. there isn't really any magic in the whole thing. besides giving consistent initial conditions, the barrel can do little to improve consistency.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#55 Lord Odin

Lord Odin

    3 may keep a secret if 2 of them are dead

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oak Lawn, IL


Posted 25 March 2009 - 10:43 PM

It's results like these that make us want to change the nature of the beast (damn, that's twice I've used that phrase in one day). If all barrels are going to perform similarly and paint is going to do it's own thing, then perhaps the paint is what needs to be changed. Hopefully that's where First Strike will come in. This Summer, I'm hoping to have my target completed and have some rounds in my hands to do some accuracy tests of my own. I'm sure you guys can put them to the test before then.

#56 paintballpdh19

paintballpdh19

    Playa Member :P

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 25 March 2009 - 10:45 PM

english???

#57 Spitlebug

Spitlebug

    Canadian Cross Dressing, Bull ball Toucher.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Campbell River, B.C.

Posted 25 March 2009 - 11:38 PM

english???


They are basically talking about the fact that if a ball was perfect no matter how you shot it with a paintball marker there would still be some randomness to the strike of the paintball on the target due to what is called "vortex shedding". Essentially "vortex shedding" is how the paintball flies through the air and how it moves that air around it.

Edited by Spitlebug, 25 March 2009 - 11:39 PM.

So tempted to suspend Kitty just so I can say I have....
Okay, fuck it....I just banned Kitty, that's going in the sig.

Administrator - ICD Owner's Group

Posted Image


#58 CrazyLittle

CrazyLittle

    That's 65% more bullet, per bullet.

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,117 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 March 2009 - 12:30 AM

english???


When you're riding in the passenger seat of a car and you hold your hand out the window like a wing... No matter how perfect or flat or round or even or aerodynamic your hand is, the wind will knock your hand around. That's a gross oversimplification of vortex shedding, but what they mean is this:

Both the imperfections in the roundness of the ball, and the effects that AIR has in knocking the ball around, will have far more effect on accuracy than any barrel could.

Feedback | Everything you need to know about Loctite | I have too many guns to list. Click here to see them.
Posted Image
PrometheanFlame - If I had to pick one of us to survive the rapture/nuclear apocalypse, I'd choose you.


#59 Jack Wood

Jack Wood

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Eclipse UK

Posted 26 March 2009 - 05:55 AM

i have a feeling that you could shoot the first strike rounds through pvc pipe of fairly close bore match and still have it shoot mint, in other words I'd hypothesize that the barrel has no effect on the fs rounds (ie even the triable barrel would shoot them nice)


I suspect this is almost completely incorrect! EDIT: and the tribal test results suggest I am right.



I have a serious problem with the characterization of vortex shedding in the video. The roundness of the paint won't save you to any degree worth mentioning...the vortex shedding is sequential, not simultaneous, so there is ALWAYS a net force. This leads to a random walk, no matter what you do, and you can in fact predict a gaussian distribution (it was done once upon a time in deep blue) for the pattern. I make this a point of contention, because if you think off-roundness has something to do with it, your natural inclination is to expect rifling to make a difference. However, if you look at the shift in surface velocities induced by even the most aggressive rifling, its trivial to see that vortex shedding should still be random and with an angle that is still essentially perpendicular to ball flight (bad!).

This reinforces the notion that when launching imperfect spheres (see: baseball, golf, ping pong, tennis), spin is key not only to trajectory (Magnus effect), but possibly to precision as well - if you control the spin variable not only do you control the magnus forces, but perhaps you create node for the vortices to preferentially shed from, at least along one axis.


That's what I was trying to say in the (one of man) discussion we had on this subject in another thread. Was it the Hammerhead thread? Preferential shedding.

So, how do we try and get a look to see if this really happens? I feel that even a very slow rotation that is near-perpendicular to the axis of flight could lead to small degrees of preferential shedding. Some college geek somewhere must have written a paper on the influence on vortex shedding in rotating spheres in a flow.........
I hereby declare that I work for Planet Eclipse Ltd
I live in England.
I work in England.
I am English.
Eclipse Owners Club V2

#60 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,121 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 26 March 2009 - 09:20 AM

if you haven't already, you gotta check out the first video showing vortex shedding.

this guy is using lazes to illuminate micro hydrogen bubbles to see the flow. its freakin sweet.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#61 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 26 March 2009 - 02:01 PM

That's what I was trying to say in the (one of man) discussion we had on this subject in another thread. Was it the Hammerhead thread? Preferential shedding.

So, how do we try and get a look to see if this really happens? I feel that even a very slow rotation that is near-perpendicular to the axis of flight could lead to small degrees of preferential shedding. Some college geek somewhere must have written a paper on the influence on vortex shedding in rotating spheres in a flow.........


That's a great idea, I just found a ton of articles on Compendex having to do with Vortex shedding in spheres, luckily I'm still a student and can download most of the articles for free. I'll spend some time looking at them.

if you haven't already, you gotta check out the first video showing vortex shedding.

this guy is using lazes to illuminate micro hydrogen bubbles to see the flow. its freakin sweet.


Where's the link to this? It sounds sweet!
<img src="http://img.photobuck...tball/Sig4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" />
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->"do the math, save the world"<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

#62 Spitlebug

Spitlebug

    Canadian Cross Dressing, Bull ball Toucher.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Campbell River, B.C.

Posted 26 March 2009 - 02:42 PM

Youtube on cockerpunks channel.

So tempted to suspend Kitty just so I can say I have....
Okay, fuck it....I just banned Kitty, that's going in the sig.

Administrator - ICD Owner's Group

Posted Image


#63 Jack Wood

Jack Wood

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Eclipse UK

Posted 27 March 2009 - 05:04 AM

Can't find it.



You talking about this one?
I hereby declare that I work for Planet Eclipse Ltd
I live in England.
I work in England.
I am English.
Eclipse Owners Club V2

#64 Jack Wood

Jack Wood

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Eclipse UK

Posted 27 March 2009 - 05:15 AM

That's what I was trying to say in the (one of man) discussion we had on this subject in another thread. Was it the Hammerhead thread? Preferential shedding.

So, how do we try and get a look to see if this really happens? I feel that even a very slow rotation that is near-perpendicular to the axis of flight could lead to small degrees of preferential shedding. Some college geek somewhere must have written a paper on the influence on vortex shedding in rotating spheres in a flow.........


That's a great idea, I just found a ton of articles on Compendex having to do with Vortex shedding in spheres, luckily I'm still a student and can download most of the articles for free. I'll spend some time looking at them.

if you haven't already, you gotta check out the first video showing vortex shedding.

this guy is using lazes to illuminate micro hydrogen bubbles to see the flow. its freakin sweet.


Where's the link to this? It sounds sweet!


I found what looked like a good number of articles on the subject. Most are at lower Reynolds numbers though. The problem was that they are not the cheapest thing to pick up, and you don't know what you're going to get until you pay for it.

So if you have free access to most of them, then get them downloaded and give us an insight into stability of vortex shedding due to rotation of a sphere :)
I hereby declare that I work for Planet Eclipse Ltd
I live in England.
I work in England.
I am English.
Eclipse Owners Club V2

#65 Snipez4664

Snipez4664

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 March 2009 - 07:38 AM

I'm not sure I would bother with anything below the transition regime for reynolds numbers - the consensus is that you can 'freeze' the vortex shedding with tranverse rotation at a few harmonic frequencies. The article by KW Poon has some amazing images guaranteed to set you thinking...though the highest Re tested was 250. http://espace.librar..._afmc_16_07.pdf

A more exhaustive treatment can be found at: http://dtl.unimelb.e...2.jsp?frameId=1

Again, similar findings. Note that OVERSPIN actually creates WORSE oscillatory vortex shedding (should be a wider gaussian, number of steps is higher?).

There is also an article suggesting that streamwise (I think we tend to think of it as rifled) rotation delays the onset of vortex shedding by tilting the vortex loops back into the steam wake for a while (remember talking about the surface point of view? It does hurt me to be so insightful, yes. :-/ ). http://www.flair.mon...ur_mgfc2001.pdf

The other thing that falls out of almost all of these vortex shedding studies at low Re is that the wake looks like it does walk around the back of the ball. Unfortunately, none of this has a practical application, since there are a couple of transitional regimes between here and there.



Most interesting thing I found:

"In contrast, there was little evidence of vortex shedding in the supercritical range (ReD> 4 x 105), consistent with many earlier observations in the literature; however, flow visualization studies in the near-wake clearly showed the existence of a three-dimensional vortex-like structure exhibiting random rotations about the streamwise axis. In this range of Reynolds numbers, surface flow visualization studies indicated the existence of a laminar separation bubble which was followed by a transitional/turbulent reattachment and an ultimate separation around 0S = 145°."


That's pretty interesting. The cool thing is a lot of this has been done since TK left...
Posted Image

This post brought to you by: Lurker
Owner/Operator/Lead Engineer - Lurker Paintball
Check out our products at Lurker Paintball

#66 Spitlebug

Spitlebug

    Canadian Cross Dressing, Bull ball Toucher.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Campbell River, B.C.

Posted 27 March 2009 - 05:08 PM

Mmmmmm spermatozoa...

So tempted to suspend Kitty just so I can say I have....
Okay, fuck it....I just banned Kitty, that's going in the sig.

Administrator - ICD Owner's Group

Posted Image


#67 Jack Wood

Jack Wood

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Eclipse UK

Posted 30 March 2009 - 07:38 AM

Most interesting thing I found:

"In contrast, there was little evidence of vortex shedding in the supercritical range (ReD> 4 x 105), consistent with many earlier observations in the literature; however, flow visualization studies in the near-wake clearly showed the existence of a three-dimensional vortex-like structure exhibiting random rotations about the streamwise axis. In this range of Reynolds numbers, surface flow visualization studies indicated the existence of a laminar separation bubble which was followed by a transitional/turbulent reattachment and an ultimate separation around 0S = 145°."


That's pretty interesting. The cool thing is a lot of this has been done since TK left...


I'm struggling to vizualize what they mean. Are they saying there is something akin to a spiral vortex behind the sphere? And what does a laminar seperation bubble look like?

And are they saying that at high Reynolds numbers, there is not the type of Vortex shedding that we have been discussing?
I hereby declare that I work for Planet Eclipse Ltd
I live in England.
I work in England.
I am English.
Eclipse Owners Club V2

#68 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 30 March 2009 - 07:30 PM

I looked through some research articles and I found a few things worth noting:

I think we're looking at what's called "subcritical flow" where the Re is high, but not high enough for the drop off in drag associated with very high Re and a fully turbulent boundary layer.

First off, the near wake mechanism for subcritical spheres from "PIV analysis of near-wake behind a sphere at a subcritical Reynolds number", Young Il Jang, Sang Joon Lee

The flow around a sphere shows steady axi-symmetric flow in the range of Reynolds number 20–210. The axisymmetry
is then broken, and planar-symmetric flow appears until Re = 280. From Re = 280, unsteadiness
starts to occur in the planar-symmetric flow, and hairpin vortices are periodically shed. In the range of Reynolds
number 420–800, asymmetric flow is observed, and unsteadiness continues (Taneda 1956; Nakamura 1976;
Wu and Faeth 1993; Johnson and Patel 1990; Leweke et al. 1999). Many experimental and numerical research
works on sphere wake have been carried out in this Reynolds number range to study laminar flow separation
and laminar wake. On the other hand, from Re = 800, the large-scale low-frequency vortex shedding and small-scale
high-frequency shear layer instabilities become prominent flow phenomena. A large-scale vortex is shed with wavy
shape, and turbulence occurs in the far field. At the critical Reynolds number of Re = 3.7 9 105, the drag
coefficient is rapidly reduced. This results from sequential laminar separation, reattachment, and turbulent separation
from the boundary layer of the sphere. The sphere wake becomes fully turbulent beyond this critical Reynolds
number. In the subcritical Reynolds numbers from 800 to 3.7 x 10^5, the drag coefficient of a sphere has almost
constant values, and the flow separates laminarily from the sphere. In addition, Kelvin–Helmhortz instability
occurs in the separating shear layers, and the wake becomes turbulent.


So the wakes are different on paintballs than they would be at Re ~ 100

I found this article, you'll need to purchase it if you want to read it, I could post figures and quotes but I'm not sure if I can get in trouble for doing that. It Covers the wake mechanism of a sphere at subcritical and critical Re but not spinning spheres. if you are a student ask your library and they can get you a free copy (usually):

"Numerical investigations of flow over a sphere in the subcritical and supercritical regimes", Physics of fluids [1070-6631] Constantinescu, George (2004) volume: 16 issue: 5 page: 1449 -1466

Some figures:
Sub critical drag coefficient fluctuations: Cz and Cy are basically lift coefficients
Posted Image
compared to the supercritical equivalent figures:
Posted Image

This shows the sideways forces on the ball that contribute to "random walk".

I honestly can't find anything about streamwise rotating spheres at high reynolds numbers. :( The article Snipez posted though is pretty sweet.
<img src="http://img.photobuck...tball/Sig4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" />
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->"do the math, save the world"<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

#69 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 30 March 2009 - 07:34 PM

ok, so all of that aside - what Reynolds number are we looking at at standard paintball velocities for a projectile the size of a paintball and mostly spherical?

#70 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 30 March 2009 - 09:33 PM

we calculated it a couple times in this thread and discussed implications: http://www.techpb.co...w...20&start=20
<img src="http://img.photobuck...tball/Sig4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" />
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->"do the math, save the world"<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

#71 HAZE_243

HAZE_243

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 02 April 2009 - 01:53 PM

Question: What is the maximum velocity for a paintball? Does vortex shedding effect the paintball at that speed? If so, would it be possible to build a vertical wind tunnel to achieve maximum velocity (make the paintball fall continuiosly in one place) and measure the vortex shedding. I suppose to see it you may have to use a colored air/smoke agent. I am considering building this and posting a video, but just curious to see if its worth trying or even possible.

--Haze

#72 lazylink

lazylink

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 27 posts

Posted 11 June 2010 - 08:41 PM

Hi I'm new here, but I have a quick question.

How did you calculate the "vector" number? I know its sqrt(x^2 + y^2) but the number in the data sheet next to "vector" is clearly an average of some kind. I just wanted to know how exactly you calculated that average. I have calculated the "vector" for every data point and then averaged them but I don't get the same values as in the data sheet (for example in the two piece .682 / 12" barrel I get 14.08, while the data sheet says 11.23), did you use the sample mean instead of the average? did you set the "zero" as the mean x and mean y and computed the vector as the distance from that instead of from the point (0,0)? I'm a curious person. Thanks!

#73 Steephill

Steephill

    Dota 2 > Life itself

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ft Worth, TX

Posted 11 June 2010 - 08:45 PM

Hi I'm new here, but I have a quick question.

How did you calculate the "vector" number? I know its sqrt(x^2 + y^2) but the number in the data sheet next to "vector" is clearly an average of some kind. I just wanted to know how exactly you calculated that average. I have calculated the "vector" for every data point and then averaged them but I don't get the same values as in the data sheet (for example in the two piece .682 / 12" barrel I get 14.08, while the data sheet says 11.23), did you use the sample mean instead of the average? did you set the "zero" as the mean x and mean y and computed the vector as the distance from that instead of from the point (0,0)? I'm a curious person. Thanks!

NECRO!!!! :lol:

My Feedback +14/-0

`kook 2/1/12 "The gold standard isn't what is most popular. By that logic, Justin Beiber is the gold standard of music."


#74 BEASTY

BEASTY

    Uber Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,394 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cali

Posted 11 June 2010 - 08:51 PM

holy shit...

you went back a fucking year to post?? what the tits?

What you NEED to do is mark your territory, Pee on/in the WHOLE school. I mean EVERYWHERE just SOAK IT.

↔↔ Beasty Barrel Socks ↔↔ 46/0/0↔↔


#75 PacosTacos88

PacosTacos88

    hetero-flexible

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rapid City, SD

Posted 11 June 2010 - 08:52 PM

Hi I'm new here, but I have a quick question.

How did you calculate the "vector" number? I know its sqrt(x^2 + y^2) but the number in the data sheet next to "vector" is clearly an average of some kind. I just wanted to know how exactly you calculated that average. I have calculated the "vector" for every data point and then averaged them but I don't get the same values as in the data sheet (for example in the two piece .682 / 12" barrel I get 14.08, while the data sheet says 11.23), did you use the sample mean instead of the average? did you set the "zero" as the mean x and mean y and computed the vector as the distance from that instead of from the point (0,0)? I'm a curious person. Thanks!



You can just start a new thread if you want...

9571786023_b75503e9e4.jpg





5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users