23 Feb 2005 07:27:19
Jeff Goslin
Issues Papers

I've decided to write a few issues papers. The first is available at my
website right now.

http://www.goslin.info/Issues/paint-to-barrel-matching.htm
Obviously, it is about paint to barrel matching.

I'd like some more ideas for future issues papers, both paintball and
non-paintball topics. If there's something you are seriously interested in
hearing some pontification about, I'll be happy to pen a few thoughts,
providing it's an interesting topic, of course.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





23 Feb 2005 13:15:47
Tony Sr.
Re: Issues Papers

http://www.ottersccustoms.com/barrels.html
JUST TO MAKE CONVERSATION....me I shoot any paint with my 691 ultralite and
have no problems.... ;-)
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:962dnWp7daN364HfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> I've decided to write a few issues papers. The first is available at my
> website right now.
>
> http://www.goslin.info/Issues/paint-to-barrel-matching.htm
> Obviously, it is about paint to barrel matching.
>
> I'd like some more ideas for future issues papers, both paintball and
> non-paintball topics. If there's something you are seriously interested
in
> hearing some pontification about, I'll be happy to pen a few thoughts,
> providing it's an interesting topic, of course.
>
> --
> Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
> It's not a god complex when you're always right
>
>
>




23 Feb 2005 12:11:47
pukindog
Re: Issues Papers

gee whiz..
let's see now, I've been reading rsp for a few years so...
HPA .vs Co2?
low pressure markers?
Full Auto or not?
low end .vs high end markers (better value)?
too much military imagery or not enough or does it matter?
Paintball as a spectator sport?
Top Ten Paintball Hypes?
Skill .vs technology?

Billy Goodman -
http://www.pukindogspaintball.com
If you let yourself have a bad experience and are looking for someone
else to blame, there's usually someone available to accomodate you.



23 Feb 2005 15:41:24
mhanning
Re: Issues Papers

So, do you have a super secret testing facility and such for researching
your "issues", like he who's name I won't mention (mainly because I can't
remember it) from this group a while back. I think you're taking over his
place with this pronouncement. :-o


"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:962dnWp7daN364HfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> I've decided to write a few issues papers. The first is available at my
> website right now.
>
> http://www.goslin.info/Issues/paint-to-barrel-matching.htm
> Obviously, it is about paint to barrel matching.
>
> I'd like some more ideas for future issues papers, both paintball and
> non-paintball topics. If there's something you are seriously interested
> in
> hearing some pontification about, I'll be happy to pen a few thoughts,
> providing it's an interesting topic, of course.
>
> --
> Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
> It's not a god complex when you're always right
>
>
>




23 Feb 2005 17:20:51
Aaron Reimer
Re: Issues Papers

Step 1: Admit that Jeff is a higher power

"mhanning" <doc_shock@[REMOVE-TO-REPLY]lycos.com > wrote in message
news:1O2dnTIh1tb8d4HfRVn-vQ@adelphia.com...
> So, do you have a super secret testing facility and such for researching
> your "issues", like he who's name I won't mention (mainly because I can't
> remember it) from this group a while back. I think you're taking over his
> place with this pronouncement. :-o
>
>
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:962dnWp7daN364HfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>> I've decided to write a few issues papers. The first is available at my
>> website right now.
>>
>> http://www.goslin.info/Issues/paint-to-barrel-matching.htm
>> Obviously, it is about paint to barrel matching.
>>
>> I'd like some more ideas for future issues papers, both paintball and
>> non-paintball topics. If there's something you are seriously interested
>> in
>> hearing some pontification about, I'll be happy to pen a few thoughts,
>> providing it's an interesting topic, of course.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
>> It's not a god complex when you're always right
>>
>>
>>
>
>




23 Feb 2005 18:40:06
doc_shock
Re: Issues Papers

Ronin.... that was the guy.


"Aaron Reimer" <strongwilledchild@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:fl7Td.4633$If1.465360@read2.cgocable.net...
> Step 1: Admit that Jeff is a higher power
>
> "mhanning" <doc_shock@[REMOVE-TO-REPLY]lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:1O2dnTIh1tb8d4HfRVn-vQ@adelphia.com...
>> So, do you have a super secret testing facility and such for researching
>> your "issues", like he who's name I won't mention (mainly because I can't
>> remember it) from this group a while back. I think you're taking over his
>> place with this pronouncement. :-o
>>
>>
>> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:962dnWp7daN364HfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>> I've decided to write a few issues papers. The first is available at my
>>> website right now.
>>>
>>> http://www.goslin.info/Issues/paint-to-barrel-matching.htm
>>> Obviously, it is about paint to barrel matching.
>>>
>>> I'd like some more ideas for future issues papers, both paintball and
>>> non-paintball topics. If there's something you are seriously interested
>>> in
>>> hearing some pontification about, I'll be happy to pen a few thoughts,
>>> providing it's an interesting topic, of course.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
>>> It's not a god complex when you're always right
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>




24 Feb 2005 00:05:39
LCT Paintball
Re: Issues Papers

Wow, I thought you were new around these parts. Ronin hasn't been around for
years.


BTW, Jeff doesn't need to test his theories. He's simply right because
everybody else gives up the argument after a few months.

--
"Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
www.LCTPaintball.com
www.LCTProducts.com


"doc_shock" <doc_shock@[REMOVE-TO-REPLY]lycos.com > wrote in message
news:bbednbGqjL3ZiYDfRVn-iw@adelphia.com...
> Ronin.... that was the guy.
>
>
> "Aaron Reimer" <strongwilledchild@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fl7Td.4633$If1.465360@read2.cgocable.net...
>> Step 1: Admit that Jeff is a higher power
>>
>> "mhanning" <doc_shock@[REMOVE-TO-REPLY]lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:1O2dnTIh1tb8d4HfRVn-vQ@adelphia.com...
>>> So, do you have a super secret testing facility and such for researching
>>> your "issues", like he who's name I won't mention (mainly because I
>>> can't remember it) from this group a while back. I think you're taking
>>> over his place with this pronouncement. :-o
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:962dnWp7daN364HfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>>>> I've decided to write a few issues papers. The first is available at
>>>> my
>>>> website right now.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.goslin.info/Issues/paint-to-barrel-matching.htm
>>>> Obviously, it is about paint to barrel matching.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like some more ideas for future issues papers, both paintball and
>>>> non-paintball topics. If there's something you are seriously
>>>> interested in
>>>> hearing some pontification about, I'll be happy to pen a few thoughts,
>>>> providing it's an interesting topic, of course.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
>>>> It's not a god complex when you're always right
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>




24 Feb 2005 00:07:02
EDTHEWARD
Re: Issues Papers

Jeff, that font sucks.


"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:962dnWp7daN364HfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> I've decided to write a few issues papers. The first is available at my
> website right now.
>
> http://www.goslin.info/Issues/paint-to-barrel-matching.htm
> Obviously, it is about paint to barrel matching.
>
> I'd like some more ideas for future issues papers, both paintball and
> non-paintball topics. If there's something you are seriously interested
> in
> hearing some pontification about, I'll be happy to pen a few thoughts,
> providing it's an interesting topic, of course.
>
> --
> Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
> It's not a god complex when you're always right
>
>
>




24 Feb 2005 04:40:49
DGDevin
Re: Issues Papers

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:962dnWp7daN364HfRVn-gg@comcast.com...

> I've decided to write a few issues papers. The first is available at my
> website right now.

> I'd like some more ideas for future issues papers, both paintball and
> non-paintball topics. If there's something you are seriously interested
> in
> hearing some pontification about, I'll be happy to pen a few thoughts,
> providing it's an interesting topic, of course.

How about what blowhards in love with the sound of their own voices did
before the internet?




24 Feb 2005 01:46:12
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"mhanning" <doc_shock@[REMOVE-TO-REPLY]lycos.com > wrote in message
news:1O2dnTIh1tb8d4HfRVn-vQ@adelphia.com...
> So, do you have a super secret testing facility and such for researching
> your "issues", like he who's name I won't mention (mainly because I can't
> remember it) from this group a while back. I think you're taking over his
> place with this pronouncement. :-o

No, he who shall remain nameless had his own wacky little schtick that was
ALLLLL his own. These things would be "position papers" if you will,
opinions of my own, based on little more than my own beliefs, backed up
where necessary by facts that I'll present in a very opinionated fashion.
No super secret testing facility. Just my own opinions. ;)

(His name was... well, it started with an "R", and ended in an "N", and had
an "O" and an "I" surrounding an "N" in the middle. It is the name we shalt
not speak, only spell it out of order... *grin*)

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right




24 Feb 2005 01:47:00
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"Aaron Reimer" <strongwilledchild@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:fl7Td.4633$If1.465360@read2.cgocable.net...
> Step 1: Admit that Jeff is a higher power


*mmmm* say that one more time.... that last part... *mmm*

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





24 Feb 2005 01:48:17
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"doc_shock" <doc_shock@[REMOVE-TO-REPLY]lycos.com > wrote in message
news:bbednbGqjL3ZiYDfRVn-iw@adelphia.com...
> R****.... that was the guy.


GODDAMMIT!!! Every time that fucker sees his goddamn name, he returns to
claim his birthright as resident fuckup of the newsgroup, with phrases that
get under everyone's goddamn skin like "Idjut". FUCK! And you had to
mention his name. Thanks a bunch, you twatwad.

*grin*

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





24 Feb 2005 01:49:34
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"EDTHEWARD" <BLARG@BLARG.NET > wrote in message
news:GU8Td.6945$Sa6.2189@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Jeff, that font sucks.


I like it. Comic Book something or other. I like it because it's different
from the normal Times New Roman/Arial kick everyone uses because it's the
default of Word and Access and Excel. I'm so sick of that font.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





24 Feb 2005 01:51:25
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid > wrote in message
news:lVcTd.71442$Th1.19985@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> How about what blowhards in love with the sound of their own voices did
> before the internet?

Written down...
"what did blowhards do before the internet?"
CHECK! GOT IT!!

Hey Dev, you've got a phone call, it's the kettle, he says you're black.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





24 Feb 2005 07:23:30
Tony Sr.
Re: Issues Papers

Ronnin was the biggest asshole ever to walk the face of the earth....Jeff at
least puts some good answers for the NG.... R...........N was a liar and
a cheat and I for one can prove that....Jeff is a godsend by comparison !!
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:ZuSdnQlqyp7q5YDfRVn-2g@comcast.com...
> "mhanning" <doc_shock@[REMOVE-TO-REPLY]lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:1O2dnTIh1tb8d4HfRVn-vQ@adelphia.com...
> > So, do you have a super secret testing facility and such for researching
> > your "issues", like he who's name I won't mention (mainly because I
can't
> > remember it) from this group a while back. I think you're taking over
his
> > place with this pronouncement. :-o
>
> No, he who shall remain nameless had his own wacky little schtick that was
> ALLLLL his own. These things would be "position papers" if you will,
> opinions of my own, based on little more than my own beliefs, backed up
> where necessary by facts that I'll present in a very opinionated fashion.
> No super secret testing facility. Just my own opinions. ;)
>
> (His name was... well, it started with an "R", and ended in an "N", and
had
> an "O" and an "I" surrounding an "N" in the middle. It is the name we
shalt
> not speak, only spell it out of order... *grin*)
>
> --
> Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
> It's not a god complex when you're always right
>
>




24 Feb 2005 09:50:47
Cybershark
Re: Issues Papers

Hey Jeff...here's a challenge. Disprove the paint to barrel match
theory. DON'T just write about it, actually offer up some PROOF. You
can post all the papers you want about it, but until you show some data
you're just as bad as those who claim paint-to-barrel-match is
beneficial without showing data.

You always go around preaching that the numbers don't hold up the
theory, but you NEVER offer your statistical data gathered from large
sample sizes.

Your paper basically states there are no facts that offer evidence that
paint to barrel match is beneficial, but you offer NOT A SINGLE fact to
show that it makes no effect.

Try this Jeff:

1. Take 5 different types of paint and seperate two 50 round batches
from each sample

2. take your one barrel that you claim is perfectly sufficient for all
paint and catalog the velocities and groupings of all 50 balls from
each batch of ammo.

3. Now using matched barrels to each of the other samples shoot the
remaining ammo and catalog velocities and groupings again.

4. Now you must crunch the numbers and show that your groupings and
velocity variances had no difference between the entire batch fired
from one barrel, and the sum of all the smaller batches fired from
matched barrels.

Ofcourse you'll have to document what kind of a matching procedure you
use (foot powder like AGD, a WDP paint-barrel guage sheet, whatever you
use). You'll also need the marker firmly clamped in with a regulated
air system, high quality regs, and a slow shooting pace to avoid
shootdown. I'd suggest a WGP sniper or a cocker with widely gapped
timing so that no shake is induced by the cycling of the gun. Ofcourse
if your clamp system is worth it's weight then this shouldn't be a
problem. I only suggest WGP guns because autococker barrels are by far
the most common, and therefore should be easiest to get ahold of.

It's not a god complex when you're always right, but that's why we say
Jeff has a god complex...

Ken



24 Feb 2005 13:29:04
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"Cybershark" <krnewell@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1109267447.883702.154240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hey Jeff...here's a challenge. Disprove the paint to barrel match
> theory. DON'T just write about it, actually offer up some PROOF. You
> can post all the papers you want about it, but until you show some data
> you're just as bad as those who claim paint-to-barrel-match is
> beneficial without showing data.

You can't disprove a negative, chief. "Prove that god does not exist." All
you can show is that no evidence exists to support the positive. Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.

Here's the thing about my position: It doesn't require any further support.
My claim is based mainly on two things, simple ballistic physics(which are
considered to have already been proven beyond contestation), and the lack of
evidence to support the positive theory. All I need to do is note some
simple and provable physics laws, and say that nobody has presented evidence
to support this theory from a scientific perspective, at least that we have
seen.

The key to my position is that I am willing to listen to all true scientific
data on the issue, but nobody is presenting it. Go ahead, try to find some
data to support the notion presented by the theory. I've tried, and I'm a
pretty relentless internet searcher. What little I've found has been sloppy
and hackneyed.

> You always go around preaching that the numbers don't hold up the
> theory, but you NEVER offer your statistical data gathered from large
> sample sizes.

That's the good thing about disproving the negative, you never have to worry
about evidence to support it! ;)

> Your paper basically states there are no facts that offer evidence that
> paint to barrel match is beneficial, but you offer NOT A SINGLE fact to
> show that it makes no effect.

True dat. I'm not that personally invested in the matter to investigate the
link between barrel and paint size. I am, however, confident that no
evidence to support the notion will be forthcoming, given that the notion
has been around for years, and we have not thus far seen a lick of real
evidence to support the idea. In other words, the onus is not on me to
prove that it has no effect, but rather it is on the people making the claim
to support their idea.

I'm lucky in that all I have to do is say "No it doesn't" to any claim, and
leave it at that, just like a petulant child. Without evidence to support
one side or the other, my claim is just as valid, at this point, as anyone
else's, because the opposition is claiming "Yes it does", and likewise
leaving it at that.

> It's not a god complex when you're always right, but that's why we say
> Jeff has a god complex...

Actually, very few people say it, except me. ;)

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





24 Feb 2005 19:27:38
DGDevin
Re: Issues Papers

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:RuCdnbF3JJEs5IDfRVn-sA@comcast.com...

> Hey Dev, you've got a phone call, it's the kettle, he says you're black.

Didn't claim othewise Goslin, not for a moment, but it's one thing to go to
a party and shoot your mouth off along with everyone else, it's another to
set up folding chairs in your garage so people can come and listen to you
deliver lectures. I mean, dude, what's next, CDs of you reading your own
posts, or streaming video of you commenting on the morning headlines? Good
grief.




24 Feb 2005 19:31:44
DGDevin
Re: Issues Papers

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:v8SdnSJpYtOpgIPfRVn-hw@comcast.com...

> You can't disprove a negative, chief. "Prove that god does not exist."
> All
> you can show is that no evidence exists to support the positive. Absence
> of
> evidence is not evidence of absence.

What a load of crap, followed by paragraph after paragraph of irrelevent
babbling, and ending with Goslin trying to pat himself on the back, I guess
what we've just seen is an outline of the future "issue papers."




24 Feb 2005 20:21:45
DGDevin
Re: Issues Papers

"Tony Sr." <amargio1@san.rr.com > wrote in message
news:ShfTd.11945$VD5.8778@twister.socal.rr.com...

> Ronnin was the biggest asshole ever to walk the face of the earth....Jeff
> at
> least puts some good answers for the NG.... R...........N was a liar
> and
> a cheat and I for one can prove that....Jeff is a godsend by comparison !!

I'm told that in person R***n was actually a mellow and seemingly decent
dude, but online he strapped on a deliberately engineered persona, namely an
opinionated asshole (if you'll pardon my French) who was half technical
genius and half crackerbarrel philosopher. Some of what he said was quite
interesting, but his wingnut politics and extreme points of view made him
unreliable, you just didn't know when his goofy beliefs would cloud his
judgement. And I caught him in a lie or two as well, he liked to pretend he
was always a straight arrow, but like most of us there were some questions
he couldn't answer honestly without some big cracks appearing in his story.
Jeff shares some of R***n's mannerisms, but at least he doesn't try to
pretend that his ownership of a digital micrometer gives him technical
insights denied to the rest of us, he just says he's right without bothering
to pretend he has anything to back up his opinions. ;-)




24 Feb 2005 20:22:51
DGDevin
Re: Issues Papers

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:HdednQbEvtDc5IDfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> "EDTHEWARD" <BLARG@BLARG.NET> wrote in message
> news:GU8Td.6945$Sa6.2189@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>> Jeff, that font sucks.
>
>
> I like it. Comic Book something or other. I like it because it's
> different
> from the normal Times New Roman/Arial kick everyone uses because it's the
> default of Word and Access and Excel. I'm so sick of that font.

Yeah, why go with something that everybody uses because it works, give
people a headache just to indulge yourself.




24 Feb 2005 15:58:08
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid > wrote in message
news:tHqTd.275338$w62.115074@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Jeff shares some of R***n's mannerisms, but at least he doesn't try to
> pretend that his ownership of a digital micrometer gives him technical
> insights denied to the rest of us, he just says he's right without
bothering
> to pretend he has anything to back up his opinions. ;-)

Dude I *CREATED* digital micrometers! Or something.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





24 Feb 2005 16:01:02
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid > wrote in message
news:vIqTd.275345$w62.62562@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Yeah, why go with something that everybody uses because it works, give
> people a headache just to indulge yourself.

If viewing some font gives you a headache, I suggest you visit your nearest
nuerophysiologist.

"It's not a tuuumor!" -Ahnold.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





24 Feb 2005 19:29:27
Gary Dyrkacz
Re: Issues Papers

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:29:04 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net > wrote:

>"Cybershark" <krnewell@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1109267447.883702.154240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Hey Jeff...here's a challenge. Disprove the paint to barrel match
>> theory. DON'T just write about it, actually offer up some PROOF. You
>> can post all the papers you want about it, but until you show some data
>> you're just as bad as those who claim paint-to-barrel-match is
>> beneficial without showing data.
>
>You can't disprove a negative, chief. "Prove that god does not exist." All
>you can show is that no evidence exists to support the positive. Absence of
>evidence is not evidence of absence.
>
>Here's the thing about my position: It doesn't require any further support.
>My claim is based mainly on two things, simple ballistic physics(which are
>considered to have already been proven beyond contestation), and the lack of
>evidence to support the positive theory. All I need to do is note some
>simple and provable physics laws, and say that nobody has presented evidence
>to support this theory from a scientific perspective, at least that we have
>seen.
>
First problem. I have been wrestling with the physics of paintballs
for awhile and have had numerous discussions with poeple in this group
and more recently those who have visited my website. My take is the
physics is not simple, and in fact the more I learn about aerodynamic
forces on a ball, the more I am amazed at the complications. First
off I would not consider your point about small paintballs bouncing in
the barrel adequate. There are going to be two effects in the barrel.
One, as a small ball moves down a larger diameter barrel it is
possible it will touch one side with more contact than another. The
ball will experience a resistive drag force on the contact side; this
will cause the ball to spin. Depending on other contacts down the
barrel, the ball may loose that spin or gain, and the spin axis angle
will likely change as well. So a loose fit ball, will come out of the
barrel spinning. How fast is unclear. From the Tom Kaye high speed
camera data and discussions on the ADG forums a couple of years ago,
it appears most balls will spin under 5K rpm. This spin will create a
Magnus effect which will cause down range inaccuracy.

Second, in addition to the frictional contact force, air can possibly
blow past the ball in the barrel at the same time. This will cause
the ball to spin up as well. Because of the randomness of the spin
angle, there will be a randomness to the accuracy. So from this
argument, a ball certainly is impacted by "bouncing" down the barrel.
However, the word bouncing should be used very carefully. We may be
taking about microns here.


>The key to my position is that I am willing to listen to all true scientific
>data on the issue, but nobody is presenting it. Go ahead, try to find some
>data to support the notion presented by the theory. I've tried, and I'm a
>pretty relentless internet searcher. What little I've found has been sloppy
>and hackneyed.

True, except for the Tom Kaye's data, there is little reliable data.
As for the barrel/paint match the only way to test this is not with
paintballs, but perfectly machined or formed and matched plastic
balls. In addtion, few people can afford the high speed equipment to
analyze these kinds of motions. Those that can get access to the
equipment are off doing more "worthy" research pursuits. So we all
end up speculating and calculating and never knowing for sure. A big
challenge for all you Rube Goldberg specialists is to devise simple
methods to verify these ideas.
>
>> You always go around preaching that the numbers don't hold up the
>> theory, but you NEVER offer your statistical data gathered from large
>> sample sizes.
>
>That's the good thing about disproving the negative, you never have to worry
>about evidence to support it! ;)
>
>> Your paper basically states there are no facts that offer evidence that
>> paint to barrel match is beneficial, but you offer NOT A SINGLE fact to
>> show that it makes no effect.
>
>True dat. I'm not that personally invested in the matter to investigate the
>link between barrel and paint size. I am, however, confident that no
>evidence to support the notion will be forthcoming, given that the notion
>has been around for years, and we have not thus far seen a lick of real
>evidence to support the idea. In other words, the onus is not on me to
>prove that it has no effect, but rather it is on the people making the claim
>to support their idea.

>
>I'm lucky in that all I have to do is say "No it doesn't" to any claim, and
>leave it at that, just like a petulant child. Without evidence to support
>one side or the other, my claim is just as valid, at this point, as anyone
>else's, because the opposition is claiming "Yes it does", and likewise
>leaving it at that.

I percieve ths a little different. It is in everyone's interest to
know the truth. So you are not lucky because all you have to do is say
something is untrue, your just taking the easy way out. Everyone
pontificates, and nothing gets solved. As you say, since we have very
little data to deal with, anyone's speculation is just as good as
another. Without data my explanation is just as good as yours. So why
bother at all? Why even bother with counter arguments which themselves
are unfounded speculations. Well, because we DO want to know the
truth ( or at least the falsibiability) We need to ponder the
variations in our speculations (theories) and see which may be more
reasonable. Of course, throw in a little Occam's Razor to keep from
going to far out into speculation land. That doesn't mean the most
reasonable sounding is always correct either. Even if I sorround my
ideas with complicated calculations does not mean my theory is any
better. The problems likely lie in the basic assumptions. Now
cacluations are not totally useless. Used properly it can help to
weed out the wildly implausible speculations. Thats why we have
mathematics and theorists to begin with.

For example, there is a good chance Tom Kaye from his results would
still say that my explanation above of spin causing inaccuracy is
wrong. At least a couple of years ago he and a group of other
speculators rasied the idea that inaccuracy comes primarily from
aerodynamic forces due to random vortices generated behind the ball
after it leave the barrel. (Von Karmon street vortex sheet)
Certainly calculations could probably provide an answer to this. My
personal frustration is that the level of calculation in this realm of
aerodynamics is rather sophisticated and complicated to understand.

>
>> It's not a god complex when you're always right, but that's why we say
>> Jeff has a god complex...
>
>Actually, very few people say it, except me. ;)

Gary Dyrkacz
REMOVETHISBEFORESENDINGdyrgcmn@comcast.net
Radio Control Aircraft/Paintball Physics/Paintball for 40+
http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/


25 Feb 2005 03:13:57
DGDevin
Re: Issues Papers

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:EpydnSsbJtq-3YPfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
>
> Dude I *CREATED* digital micrometers! Or something.

The rest of us got by with rulers, but I suppose when every fraction of a
millimeter counts you need to spend the money for something with smaller
degrees of measurement....




25 Feb 2005 04:06:53
LCT Paintball
Re: Issues Papers

I don't even own a set of digital micrometers. Danged kids these days with
all the fancy equipment. ;)

--
"Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
www.LCTPaintball.com
www.LCTProducts.com


"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid > wrote in message
news:VJwTd.74824$Th1.68280@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:EpydnSsbJtq-3YPfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
>>
>> Dude I *CREATED* digital micrometers! Or something.
>
> The rest of us got by with rulers, but I suppose when every fraction of a
> millimeter counts you need to spend the money for something with smaller
> degrees of measurement....
>




25 Feb 2005 04:08:10
LCT Paintball
Re: Issues Papers

> Didn't claim othewise Goslin, not for a moment, but it's one thing to go
> to a party and shoot your mouth off along with everyone else, it's another
> to set up folding chairs in your garage so people can come and listen to
> you deliver lectures. I mean, dude, what's next, CDs of you reading your
> own posts, or streaming video of you commenting on the morning headlines?
> Good grief.
>

You knew he was on a local radio show a few times didn't you? ;)




25 Feb 2005 04:40:00
EDTHEWARD
Re: Issues Papers


"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com > wrote in message
news:rfrs11hmhlegg1chgtiloc9bja0pq2a64j@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:29:04 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> True, except for the Tom Kaye's data, there is little reliable data.
> As for the barrel/paint match the only way to test this is not with
> paintballs, but perfectly machined or formed and matched plastic
> balls.


you realize that would not prove anything since the only valid application
would be with actual paintballs. The paintball is the only medium used in
paintball hence the term PAINT/BARREL match. Any other object would not be a
paintball, and proof of PAINTBALL to barrel match is what is being argued
endlessly in this thread.

and of course paintballs are never perfect and never the same. best outcome
is an average.

I can't see the dead horse from the masive beating it has taken.

oh look..a chicken and an egg...

oh look...a spyder and a tippmann...

oh look.. Jeff's mom and a rhino....

( sorry Jeff)





25 Feb 2005 08:34:53
DGDevin
Re: Issues Papers

"LCT Paintball" <nospampleasemnotlyon@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:KwxTd.53597$tl3.21540@attbi_s02...
>
> You knew he was on a local radio show a few times didn't you? ;)

Let me guess, the local version of Howard Stern? Did they make him shave a
dwarf or guess a stripper's weight as she sat on his face? What a price to
pay for fifteen minutes of fame.




25 Feb 2005 06:42:19
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid > wrote in message
news:NqBTd.75588$Th1.35408@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "LCT Paintball" <nospampleasemnotlyon@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:KwxTd.53597$tl3.21540@attbi_s02...
> >
> > You knew he was on a local radio show a few times didn't you? ;)
>
> Let me guess, the local version of Howard Stern? Did they make him shave
a
> dwarf or guess a stripper's weight as she sat on his face? What a price
to
> pay for fifteen minutes of fame.

Actually, it was the other way around. I sat on people's faces and they had
to guess my weight.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





25 Feb 2005 06:44:56
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"EDTHEWARD" <BLARG@BLARG.NET > wrote in message
news:A_xTd.10868$Sa6.255@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> and of course paintballs are never perfect and never the same. best
outcome
> is an average.

Average is all I'd look for. I realize that paintballs are fickle objects,
I'm willing to accept a degree of uncertainty when evaluating the
information, but thus far, I have NEVER seen data that would pass muster as
anything even close.

> oh look.. Jeff's mom and a rhino....
>
> ( sorry Jeff)

Eh... it's been a while since the last "mom" joke... ;)

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





25 Feb 2005 07:09:24
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com > wrote in message
news:rfrs11hmhlegg1chgtiloc9bja0pq2a64j@4ax.com...
> First problem. I have been wrestling with the physics of paintballs
> for awhile and have had numerous discussions with poeple in this group
> and more recently those who have visited my website. My take is the
> physics is not simple, and in fact the more I learn about aerodynamic
> forces on a ball, the more I am amazed at the complications. First

Let us just say that we could boil down the physics to a few key points. If
you *REALLY* want to make it overly complicated, you could do a whole
assload of energy evaluations and drag coefficients, and blah blah blah.

The force of friction applied to an object that has the force of expelled
gas set behind it is almost negligeble in comparison for the 12" or so that
it travels inside the barrel, otherwise the ball would never reach 300fps,
right? To worry about the minutia is to miss all the trees through the
forest.

Quite simply, ignore the physics if you like. SOMEONE get me a substantial
quantity of factor controlled data of paint shot from a variety of barrels
where the paint size remains relatively constant and the barrel size is
changed around it. I won't even begin to address the "WHY" of the question,
I just want to see "WHAT" actually happens.

> possible it will touch one side with more contact than another. The
> ball will experience a resistive drag force on the contact side; this
> will cause the ball to spin. Depending on other contacts down the

A) It will spin only if there is enough drag to fully rotate the ball AND
keep it spinning for the entire flight
B) Barrels these days are polished to a mirror shine. You have to
intentionally rough up a barrel AND bend it in a funky way to intentionally
induce spin. Every other barrel is smooth as silk. You *REALLY* think
you're going to get an appreciable level of friction on a quality straight
barrel?

> Second, in addition to the frictional contact force, air can possibly
> blow past the ball in the barrel at the same time. This will cause

The ball accelerates in the first 8", then decelerates from there. Simply
put, the ball WILL be moving faster than the air as it exits the gun, so no
overblow.

> However, the word bouncing should be used very carefully. We may be
> taking about microns here.

That's about the size of it.

> True, except for the Tom Kaye's data, there is little reliable data.

I'd like to see that data. Although, it might not be as independant as I
might like, him being a gun/barrel manufacturer and all. What I would MOST
like to see is someone test these things who is totally independant.

> As for the barrel/paint match the only way to test this is not with
> paintballs, but perfectly machined or formed and matched plastic
> balls. In addtion, few people can afford the high speed equipment to

As noted in another post, we're talking about paintballs, not paintball
sized plastic bits. I'm willing to concede some precision in favor of
accomplishing the goal itself. A p<0.05 test is a standard level of
significance. I don't much care WHY what's happening is happening, I'd just
like to know if the accuracy is truly significantly affected, and not just
hear a whole bunch of hyperbole.

> I percieve ths a little different. It is in everyone's interest to
> know the truth.

Everyone including the people making a bundle selling an unsuspecting public
on the notion that they need to buy more barrels to ensure a proper paint to
barrel match? Oh, my, it's cute how naive you are! ;)

So you are not lucky because all you have to do is say
> something is untrue, your just taking the easy way out.

It's true. I am taking the easy way out. In logical terms though, all I've
done is say "prove it". Hell, just SUPPORT it. Even theories tend to have
data associated with them, religious arguments notwithstanding, of course.

> pontificates, and nothing gets solved. As you say, since we have very
> little data to deal with, anyone's speculation is just as good as
> another. Without data my explanation is just as good as yours. So why

Actually, my position does not require proof of any kind. There is a claim
made by people who wish to sell barrels, that matching barrel to paint and
vice versa will increase accuracy. I don't believe them. To them I say
"prove it". I'm not making any statement of fact save for one: You have
not proven your claim to be true. Until they prove it to be true,
independantly, statistically and scientifically, I will never believe them.

> reasonable sounding is always correct either. Even if I sorround my
> ideas with complicated calculations does not mean my theory is any
> better.

True, but still, there's nothing to even pontificate about in terms of data,
so we're kind of left standing here with little more than a bible in our
hands and the statements of others that every word in it is the gospel
truth. Sorry, but I don't buy religion, why should I buy a hundred barrels?
;)

> personal frustration is that the level of calculation in this realm of
> aerodynamics is rather sophisticated and complicated to understand.

Don't worry about the why for now. Just worry about whether it actually
does or does not help(sizing the paint to barrels, that is)

If you REALLY find a causal link using fancy physics and high tech cameras
and whatnot, and make a barrel that solves some fundamental problem, I
guarantee you that you will be a rich man.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





25 Feb 2005 13:13:09
Ayar
Re: Issues Papers


"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid > wrote in message
news:KUpTd.275087$w62.273858@bgtnsc05-

>I mean, dude, what's next, CDs of you reading your own posts, or streaming
>video of you commenting on the morning headlines?

I'd buy those.




25 Feb 2005 14:37:58
Tony Sr.
Re: Issues Papers

Jeff to back you a little bit.....every pro player I know and I know most
all of them uses .692 to .694 barrels...better to shoot paint and not clean
barrels, little more air but big deal......
"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:s46dnYa3Qv0liILfRVn-oA@comcast.com...
> "Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:rfrs11hmhlegg1chgtiloc9bja0pq2a64j@4ax.com...
> > First problem. I have been wrestling with the physics of paintballs
> > for awhile and have had numerous discussions with poeple in this group
> > and more recently those who have visited my website. My take is the
> > physics is not simple, and in fact the more I learn about aerodynamic
> > forces on a ball, the more I am amazed at the complications. First
>
> Let us just say that we could boil down the physics to a few key points.
If
> you *REALLY* want to make it overly complicated, you could do a whole
> assload of energy evaluations and drag coefficients, and blah blah blah.
>
> The force of friction applied to an object that has the force of expelled
> gas set behind it is almost negligeble in comparison for the 12" or so
that
> it travels inside the barrel, otherwise the ball would never reach 300fps,
> right? To worry about the minutia is to miss all the trees through the
> forest.
>
> Quite simply, ignore the physics if you like. SOMEONE get me a
substantial
> quantity of factor controlled data of paint shot from a variety of barrels
> where the paint size remains relatively constant and the barrel size is
> changed around it. I won't even begin to address the "WHY" of the
question,
> I just want to see "WHAT" actually happens.
>
> > possible it will touch one side with more contact than another. The
> > ball will experience a resistive drag force on the contact side; this
> > will cause the ball to spin. Depending on other contacts down the
>
> A) It will spin only if there is enough drag to fully rotate the ball AND
> keep it spinning for the entire flight
> B) Barrels these days are polished to a mirror shine. You have to
> intentionally rough up a barrel AND bend it in a funky way to
intentionally
> induce spin. Every other barrel is smooth as silk. You *REALLY* think
> you're going to get an appreciable level of friction on a quality straight
> barrel?
>
> > Second, in addition to the frictional contact force, air can possibly
> > blow past the ball in the barrel at the same time. This will cause
>
> The ball accelerates in the first 8", then decelerates from there. Simply
> put, the ball WILL be moving faster than the air as it exits the gun, so
no
> overblow.
>
> > However, the word bouncing should be used very carefully. We may be
> > taking about microns here.
>
> That's about the size of it.
>
> > True, except for the Tom Kaye's data, there is little reliable data.
>
> I'd like to see that data. Although, it might not be as independant as I
> might like, him being a gun/barrel manufacturer and all. What I would
MOST
> like to see is someone test these things who is totally independant.
>
> > As for the barrel/paint match the only way to test this is not with
> > paintballs, but perfectly machined or formed and matched plastic
> > balls. In addtion, few people can afford the high speed equipment to
>
> As noted in another post, we're talking about paintballs, not paintball
> sized plastic bits. I'm willing to concede some precision in favor of
> accomplishing the goal itself. A p<0.05 test is a standard level of
> significance. I don't much care WHY what's happening is happening, I'd
just
> like to know if the accuracy is truly significantly affected, and not just
> hear a whole bunch of hyperbole.
>
> > I percieve ths a little different. It is in everyone's interest to
> > know the truth.
>
> Everyone including the people making a bundle selling an unsuspecting
public
> on the notion that they need to buy more barrels to ensure a proper paint
to
> barrel match? Oh, my, it's cute how naive you are! ;)
>
> So you are not lucky because all you have to do is say
> > something is untrue, your just taking the easy way out.
>
> It's true. I am taking the easy way out. In logical terms though, all
I've
> done is say "prove it". Hell, just SUPPORT it. Even theories tend to
have
> data associated with them, religious arguments notwithstanding, of course.
>
> > pontificates, and nothing gets solved. As you say, since we have very
> > little data to deal with, anyone's speculation is just as good as
> > another. Without data my explanation is just as good as yours. So why
>
> Actually, my position does not require proof of any kind. There is a
claim
> made by people who wish to sell barrels, that matching barrel to paint and
> vice versa will increase accuracy. I don't believe them. To them I say
> "prove it". I'm not making any statement of fact save for one: You have
> not proven your claim to be true. Until they prove it to be true,
> independantly, statistically and scientifically, I will never believe
them.
>
> > reasonable sounding is always correct either. Even if I sorround my
> > ideas with complicated calculations does not mean my theory is any
> > better.
>
> True, but still, there's nothing to even pontificate about in terms of
data,
> so we're kind of left standing here with little more than a bible in our
> hands and the statements of others that every word in it is the gospel
> truth. Sorry, but I don't buy religion, why should I buy a hundred
barrels?
> ;)
>
> > personal frustration is that the level of calculation in this realm of
> > aerodynamics is rather sophisticated and complicated to understand.
>
> Don't worry about the why for now. Just worry about whether it actually
> does or does not help(sizing the paint to barrels, that is)
>
> If you REALLY find a causal link using fancy physics and high tech cameras
> and whatnot, and make a barrel that solves some fundamental problem, I
> guarantee you that you will be a rich man.
>
> --
> Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
> It's not a god complex when you're always right
>
>
>




25 Feb 2005 16:51:05
Volt
Re: Issues Papers

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:VJOdncIwC_fCkoLfRVn-uw@comcast.com...

> Actually, it was the other way around. I sat on people's faces and they
had
> to guess my weight.

Well, since you're not in jail for manslaughter or homicide, we can rule
that one false. ;-)

--

Volt




25 Feb 2005 17:37:36
DGDevin
Re: Issues Papers

"Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:VJOdncIwC_fCkoLfRVn-uw@comcast.com...

> Actually, it was the other way around. I sat on people's faces and they
> had
> to guess my weight.

Too horrifying to even contemplate, there must have been fatalities....




25 Feb 2005 17:38:28
DGDevin
Re: Issues Papers

"Ayar" <autococker@NOSPAMinsightbb.com > wrote in message
news:FvFTd.54442$4q6.33067@attbi_s01...
>
>>I mean, dude, what's next, CDs of you reading your own posts, or streaming
>>video of you commenting on the morning headlines?
>
> I'd buy those.

Like the man said, a sucker born every minute, and nobody ever went broke
underestimating the taste of the American public....




25 Feb 2005 11:56:48
Cybershark
Re: Issues Papers

While you are correct that by supporting the negative you get an easier
way out you've still overstepped the bounds. Just saying it doesn't
happen isn't going to cut it. You can disprove a theory of this nature
through accurate experimentation. Any negative is just a restated
positive. The claim you're making is that any barrel with a smooth
surface and reasonable inner diameter (between .682 &.692 probably
constitute reasonable, but feel free to give your own numbers) will
fire exactly the same no matter what size of ammo you put through it
(again within reason, as in all .68 cal rated ammo), and that no
measurable degree of accuracy or efficiency will be altered when the
paint size is changed. Any student who's ever taken a logic class can
tell you that "No it doesn't" is not going to win you points.

Anyways. What kind of barrel do you want to reccomend? between a buddy
and I we have a hefty chunk of the cocker barrel market in our gear
bags. I'll setup a camera and run some tests. We'll bin sort the ammo
with micrometers (or a spring controlled slip fit system I've got
bouncing around in my head), and match balls to barrels. Then we'll get
sampling and use a clamped down eblade with 1/4 second holdoffs on the
recock stroke to minimize shake. Reasonably scientific enough? Oh, and
we'll post a windsock within camera frame to make sure wind is kept to
a minimum of interference.

You see, where as you are content to say,"it doesn't happen" my mind
won't let me do that. I agree that there is no formal evidence, so I'll
try to generate some. It won't be super controlled lab quality, but
that's not realistic anyways. We'll get as close as the gear naturally
lets us get in a natural environment (a calm outdoor setting). Now I've
just gotta call up some of the newbies and see if they wanna help sort
ammo.

Ken

PS, Jeff...you're a card carrying member of the Flat Earth Society
aren't you?



25 Feb 2005 12:02:21
Cybershark
Re: Issues Papers

While you are correct that by supporting the negative you get an easier
way out you've still overstepped the bounds. Just saying it doesn't
happen isn't going to cut it. You can disprove a theory of this nature
through accurate experimentation. Any negative is just a restated
positive. The claim you're making is that any barrel with a smooth
surface and reasonable inner diameter (between .682 &.692 probably
constitute reasonable, but feel free to give your own numbers) will
fire exactly the same no matter what size of ammo you put through it
(again within reason, as in all .68 cal rated ammo), and that no
measurable degree of accuracy or efficiency will be altered when the
paint size is changed. Any student who's ever taken a logic class can
tell you that "No it doesn't" is not going to win you points.

Anyways. What kind of barrel do you want to reccomend? between a buddy
and I we have a hefty chunk of the cocker barrel market in our gear
bags. I'll setup a camera and run some tests. We'll bin sort the ammo
with micrometers (or a spring controlled slip fit system I've got
bouncing around in my head), and match balls to barrels. Then we'll get
sampling and use a clamped down eblade with 1/4 second holdoffs on the
recock stroke to minimize shake. Reasonably scientific enough? Oh, and
we'll post a windsock within camera frame to make sure wind is kept to
a minimum of interference.

You see, where as you are content to say,"it doesn't happen" my mind
won't let me do that. I agree that there is no formal evidence, so I'll
try to generate some. It won't be super controlled lab quality, but
that's not realistic anyways. We'll get as close as the gear naturally
lets us get in a natural environment (a calm outdoor setting). Now I've
just gotta call up some of the newbies and see if they wanna help sort
ammo.

Ken

PS, Jeff...you're a card carrying member of the Flat Earth Society
aren't you?



25 Feb 2005 15:39:23
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"Volt" <nothanks@mr.spammer > wrote in message
news:ZHITd.25256$Yf5.2281485@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:VJOdncIwC_fCkoLfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>
> > Actually, it was the other way around. I sat on people's faces and they
> had
> > to guess my weight.
>
> Well, since you're not in jail for manslaughter or homicide, we can rule
> that one false. ;-)

You ruin ALL my fun. ;)

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





25 Feb 2005 16:13:15
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"Cybershark" <krnewell@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1109361408.168726.314550@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> While you are correct that by supporting the negative you get an easier
> way out you've still overstepped the bounds.

No, I am, admittedly, taking the cheap way out, but I am in NO WAY making
positive statements of fact, which are the kind of statements requiring
support. I am only stepping over the bounds of "ethical arguing", or
whatever you would like to call it. You just prefer that I provide a better
explanation than "no it isn't", which is an understandable position, but not
necessarily a logically valid one.

> You can disprove a theory of this nature
> through accurate experimentation.

Yep, "one" could do such a thing. Luckily, I prefer not to spend the time
or money required to do a proper scientific experiment designed to either
establish or dismiss a link between barrel to paint ratio and accuracy down
range. Someone who believes fervently enough in the veracity of their
position will (eventually) do it for me.

> positive. The claim you're making is that any barrel with a smooth
> surface and reasonable inner diameter (between .682 &.692 probably
> constitute reasonable, but feel free to give your own numbers) will
> fire exactly the same no matter what size of ammo you put through it
> (again within reason, as in all .68 cal rated ammo), and that no
> measurable degree of accuracy or efficiency will be altered when the
> paint size is changed. Any student who's ever taken a logic class can
> tell you that "No it doesn't" is not going to win you points.

WRONG. First you're expanding the argument to include efficiency, which I
have both granted as possible and ignored for the sake of this discussion.
Second, you're making statements that are inferences of what I said. I have
never made positive statements, only negative ones. I take the statements
of others and add a "NOT" in the middle. Third, you're modifying the
experiement I suggested. I suggested modifying barrel size around
consistent paint, not the other way around.

Never have I stated that the guns will fire identically given different
paint, because even *I* must grant that a small variation exists due to
loose paint. That variation is so small as to be almost insignificant, but
one cannot state that there is NO impact. The impact is NEGLIGEBLE.

Don't worry, I fully agree that I am taking the cheap and easy way out, but
that doesn't change the fact that the position I oppose is opposed on
grounds that do not require me to go deeper. I am attacking the support for
the theory in question from the perspective that there IS NO SUPPORTING
INFORMATION. I can't very well make positive claims about non-existant
data, now can I?

> Anyways. What kind of barrel do you want to reccomend? between a buddy
> and I we have a hefty chunk of the cocker barrel market in our gear
> bags. I'll setup a camera and run some tests. We'll bin sort the ammo
> with micrometers (or a spring controlled slip fit system I've got
> bouncing around in my head), and match balls to barrels. Then we'll get
> sampling and use a clamped down eblade with 1/4 second holdoffs on the
> recock stroke to minimize shake. Reasonably scientific enough? Oh, and
> we'll post a windsock within camera frame to make sure wind is kept to
> a minimum of interference.

No need for cameras or anything. Quite frankly, if you cheat on the
experiment, you're only cheating yourself. Modifying data or re-running the
experiment over and over again until you get data that supports your
position would only provide people with more invalid data, agreed? It's one
thing if repeats of the experiment tend to show a statistically valid link
between size matching and accuracy, it's another if you repeat it over and
over again, hoping for a miracle statistical significance on successive
attempts, where none had existed before.

That said, keep the paint the same, the gun the same, the velocity as steady
as possible, the environment as much of a non-factor as possible. The only
thing to change is the barrel(and it's size). Choose three barrels from
your selection, one where the paint barely gets thru, one where it's a "good
fit" and one where it rolls thru the barrel. Do a few test shots to get
your speed within a given range(I would recommend 285 +/- 2fps) and then run
the test. Make sure you wait between shots for things to return to a
constant level, say 10 seconds.

> You see, where as you are content to say,"it doesn't happen" my mind
> won't let me do that. I agree that there is no formal evidence, so I'll
> try to generate some.

GREAT! It sounds like we might actually get a decent answer. The key, of
course, is in the statistical analysis of the raw data, and I'd like to
personally evaluate that raw data once you get it. You see, what we never
see is the raw data, just the analysis. If we work from the same data and
come up with the same results, that is independant confirmation.

> PS, Jeff...you're a card carrying member of the Flat Earth Society
> aren't you?

I would be, if I could be bothered to send in my dues, but their head office
is located on the flip side of the disk, so it's pretty difficult to get
mail to them... ;)

Actually that flat earth society is pretty damn funny. Hit their web site
for some interestingly amusing reading.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





26 Feb 2005 00:24:09
Tom Greening
Re: Issues Papers

Bovine Excrement. He'll do nothing of the sort.


"mhanning" <doc_shock@[REMOVE-TO-REPLY]lycos.com > wrote in message
news:1O2dnTIh1tb8d4HfRVn-vQ@adelphia.com...
> So, do you have a super secret testing facility and such for researching
> your "issues", like he who's name I won't mention (mainly because I can't
> remember it) from this group a while back. I think you're taking over his
> place with this pronouncement. :-o




26 Feb 2005 00:26:07
Tom Greening
Re: Issues Papers


"DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid > wrote in message
news:KUpTd.275087$w62.273858@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Didn't claim othewise Goslin, not for a moment, but it's one thing to go
to
> a party and shoot your mouth off along with everyone else, it's another to
> set up folding chairs in your garage so people can come and listen to you
> deliver lectures. I mean, dude, what's next, CDs of you reading your own
> posts, or streaming video of you commenting on the morning headlines?
Good
> grief.
>
>


The entire works of Shakespeare......as interpreted and read by Jeff.




26 Feb 2005 06:57:41
Gary Dyrkacz
Re: Issues Papers

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 04:40:00 GMT, "EDTHEWARD" <BLARG@BLARG.NET > wrote:

>
>"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:rfrs11hmhlegg1chgtiloc9bja0pq2a64j@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:29:04 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
>> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> True, except for the Tom Kaye's data, there is little reliable data.
>> As for the barrel/paint match the only way to test this is not with
>> paintballs, but perfectly machined or formed and matched plastic
>> balls.
>
>
>you realize that would not prove anything since the only valid application
>would be with actual paintballs. The paintball is the only medium used in
>paintball hence the term PAINT/BARREL match. Any other object would not be a
>paintball, and proof of PAINTBALL to barrel match is what is being argued
>endlessly in this thread.
>
>and of course paintballs are never perfect and never the same. best outcome
>is an average.

You are partially correct. What ersatz (perfect) paintballs would do
is give you a baseline from which to judge the problem with real
paintballs. You would still have to do all the barrel/paint matching
studies, but now you would have a reliable reference base to make
comparisons against. The arguments would still be based on
sophisticated statistical analysis. Right now we have no idea what
drives the inaccuracies, or what the lower limits of inaccuracy is. I
doublt that even with perfect balls the lower spread limit is zero.
>
>I can't see the dead horse from the masive beating it has taken.
>
>oh look..a chicken and an egg...
>
>oh look...a spyder and a tippmann...
>
>oh look.. Jeff's mom and a rhino....
>
>( sorry Jeff)
>
>

Gary Dyrkacz
REMOVETHISBEFORESENDINGdyrgcmn@comcast.net
Radio Control Aircraft/Paintball Physics/Paintball for 40+
http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/


26 Feb 2005 08:38:57
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com > wrote in message
news:d1s021d8j1mar48ph58llvc9j417g9stnd@4ax.com...
> You are partially correct. What ersatz (perfect) paintballs would do
> is give you a baseline from which to judge the problem with real
> paintballs.

Well, yes and no. Yes, they would give a "perfect sphere" approximation,
but there's more to shooting a paintball than that. You have to remember
that it is a liquid filled sphere intended to break on contact, meaning that
it is not exactly the most stable of surfaces. I can imagine that there is
at least a minor amount of distortion that occurs in a paintball when it is
fired. A perfect sphere of plastic(or some other material) would probably
not capture that very well.

> sophisticated statistical analysis. Right now we have no idea what
> drives the inaccuracies, or what the lower limits of inaccuracy is. I

Personally, for me, the idea is NOT to find out what causes inaccuracy, but
merely to determine whether THIS factor(paint to barrel matching) has any
impact on it. To date, nobody has made a case for it that is backed by
anything more than their word.


--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





26 Feb 2005 13:49:39
Ayar
Re: Issues Papers


"Tom Greening" <tgreen@yohmama.com > wrote in message
news:zmPTd.11777$Sa6.3282@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
> "DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote in message
> news:KUpTd.275087$w62.273858@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> Didn't claim othewise Goslin, not for a moment, but it's one thing to go
> to
>> a party and shoot your mouth off along with everyone else, it's another
>> to
>> set up folding chairs in your garage so people can come and listen to you
>> deliver lectures. I mean, dude, what's next, CDs of you reading your own
>> posts, or streaming video of you commenting on the morning headlines?
> Good
>> grief.
>>
>>
>
>
> The entire works of Shakespeare......as interpreted and read by Jeff.
>
>

I'd buy that.




26 Feb 2005 09:32:36
Gary Dyrkacz
Re: Issues Papers

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:09:24 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net > wrote:

>"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:rfrs11hmhlegg1chgtiloc9bja0pq2a64j@4ax.com...
>> First problem. I have been wrestling with the physics of paintballs
>> for awhile and have had numerous discussions with poeple in this group
>> and more recently those who have visited my website. My take is the
>> physics is not simple, and in fact the more I learn about aerodynamic
>> forces on a ball, the more I am amazed at the complications. First
>
>Let us just say that we could boil down the physics to a few key points. If
>you *REALLY* want to make it overly complicated, you could do a whole
>assload of energy evaluations and drag coefficients, and blah blah blah.
>
>The force of friction applied to an object that has the force of expelled
>gas set behind it is almost negligeble in comparison for the 12" or so that
>it travels inside the barrel, otherwise the ball would never reach 300fps,
>right? To worry about the minutia is to miss all the trees through the
>forest.

No, the force of friction cannot be negligable and the actual flight
of paintballs bears this out. A painball should never rotate at all
if friction, and even worse, differential friction was not operating.
That differential friction can be from barrel contact and unbalanced
gas flow past the ball. We all would like to boil it down to a "few
key points" physics-wise, but that is part of my point. Iit may not be
a few key points, and we have no really good idea what trees the
forest of possible physical forces and effects is composed of.
>
>Quite simply, ignore the physics if you like. SOMEONE get me a substantial
>quantity of factor controlled data of paint shot from a variety of barrels
>where the paint size remains relatively constant and the barrel size is
>changed around it. I won't even begin to address the "WHY" of the question,
>I just want to see "WHAT" actually happens.

I do not argue that experiments are not good, only that we are stuck
with what we can do. Given the money to do calculations or do the
experiments, I would choose the experiments every time. However, the
poor mans methods are first conjecture and hypothesizing.

>
>> possible it will touch one side with more contact than another. The
>> ball will experience a resistive drag force on the contact side; this
>> will cause the ball to spin. Depending on other contacts down the
>
>A) It will spin only if there is enough drag to fully rotate the ball AND
>keep it spinning for the entire flight

Not true, you do not need to fully rotate the ball. We are talking
about forces here. Go back to Newton's three laws. You apply a force,
even an instantaneous force, in a particular direction and the object
will tend to follow the force. The amount of induced spin depends on
contact time.

>B) Barrels these days are polished to a mirror shine. You have to
>intentionally rough up a barrel AND bend it in a funky way to intentionally
>induce spin. Every other barrel is smooth as silk. You *REALLY* think
>you're going to get an appreciable level of friction on a quality straight
>barrel?

Absolutely! We know bending a barrel works to spin ball. However, a
mirror shine and the straightest barrel on earth does not negate
friction effects. High polish certainly will reduce frictional effects
compared to a rough, or scratched barrel. However, frictional forces
can arise in a number of ways. For instance, the type and texture of
the ball surface, capilary forces between the barrel and any kind of
film on the ball, The humidity of the air which will likely affect not
onlly the ball size, but the contact forces between the ball and the
barrel.
>
>> Second, in addition to the frictional contact force, air can possibly
>> blow past the ball in the barrel at the same time. This will cause
>
>The ball accelerates in the first 8", then decelerates from there. Simply
>put, the ball WILL be moving faster than the air as it exits the gun, so no
>overblow.

Hard to believe. Basically your saying that as the ball leaves the
barrel, you have a vacuum in the barrel. The ball could well
decelerate after the first 8", I don't know. However, that does not
mean the air is moving slower than the ball, only that it is not
supplying sufficient force to overcome drag effects in the barrel. By
the way, this statement is inconsistent with your mirror finish - lack
of friction argument above.
>
>> However, the word bouncing should be used very carefully. We may be
>> taking about microns here.
>
>That's about the size of it.
>
>> True, except for the Tom Kaye's data, there is little reliable data.
>
>I'd like to see that data. Although, it might not be as independant as I
>might like, him being a gun/barrel manufacturer and all. What I would MOST
>like to see is someone test these things who is totally independant.

Go to the AGD forums. I am not sure if the data is still there or not.
Tom did not give us all the data, but he graciously presented enough
to give me pause for more profound thought on the physics of
paintballs.
>
>> As for the barrel/paint match the only way to test this is not with
>> paintballs, but perfectly machined or formed and matched plastic
>> balls. In addtion, few people can afford the high speed equipment to
>
>As noted in another post, we're talking about paintballs, not paintball
>sized plastic bits. I'm willing to concede some precision in favor of
>accomplishing the goal itself. A p<0.05 test is a standard level of
>significance. I don't much care WHY what's happening is happening, I'd just
>like to know if the accuracy is truly significantly affected, and not just
>hear a whole bunch of hyperbole.
>
But you have to care about the WHY something is happening. You have to
consider how you are going to separate all the other potential reasons
for inaccuracy from the one you are focusing on. You have one thesis
your after - barrel/paint match. I am suggesting there are many
factors involved that may affect accuracy of which only one is
barrel/paint match.

>> I percieve ths a little different. It is in everyone's interest to
>> know the truth.
>
>Everyone including the people making a bundle selling an unsuspecting public
>on the notion that they need to buy more barrels to ensure a proper paint to
>barrel match? Oh, my, it's cute how naive you are! ;)

I was not considering commercial "truth", but truth in its broadest
sense.
>
>So you are not lucky because all you have to do is say
>> something is untrue, your just taking the easy way out.
>
>It's true. I am taking the easy way out. In logical terms though, all I've
>done is say "prove it". Hell, just SUPPORT it. Even theories tend to have
>data associated with them, religious arguments notwithstanding, of course.
>
>> pontificates, and nothing gets solved. As you say, since we have very
>> little data to deal with, anyone's speculation is just as good as
>> another. Without data my explanation is just as good as yours. So why
>
>Actually, my position does not require proof of any kind. There is a claim
>made by people who wish to sell barrels, that matching barrel to paint and
>vice versa will increase accuracy. I don't believe them. To them I say
>"prove it". I'm not making any statement of fact save for one: You have
>not proven your claim to be true. Until they prove it to be true,
>independantly, statistically and scientifically, I will never believe them.

Sceptisim is good. Too few people do use it when purchasing equipment,
but without proof your statements are no better or worse than the
manufacturers inferences. For all we know both you and the
manufactureres are flim-flam experts. So who should we believe? You
made statements which supposedly use simple physics to suggest the
barrel/paint match is hogwash. I find your arguments incomplete and
misleading. However, I respect and applaud your efforts of raising
the issue and warning people. That is a good public service, so that
the completely clueless can realize that they may be spending their
money foolishly.
>> reasonable sounding is always correct either. Even if I sorround my
>> ideas with complicated calculations does not mean my theory is any
>> better.
>
>True, but still, there's nothing to even pontificate about in terms of data,
>so we're kind of left standing here with little more than a bible in our
>hands and the statements of others that every word in it is the gospel
>truth. Sorry, but I don't buy religion, why should I buy a hundred barrels?
>;)
>
>> personal frustration is that the level of calculation in this realm of
>> aerodynamics is rather sophisticated and complicated to understand.
>
>Don't worry about the why for now. Just worry about whether it actually
>does or does not help(sizing the paint to barrels, that is)
>
>If you REALLY find a causal link using fancy physics and high tech cameras
>and whatnot, and make a barrel that solves some fundamental problem, I
>guarantee you that you will be a rich man.

I doubt there will be any magic barrel fix. All the physics can do is
assist us in deciding is what can or cannot be controlled. I have a
suspicion that without radical changes to paintball design and then
the necessary marker redisigns to throw them, we will not see much
improvement in accuracy. The military learned this a long time ago.
Why did cannon go from round shot to bullet shaped shells?
Gary Dyrkacz
REMOVETHISBEFORESENDINGdyrgcmn@comcast.net
Radio Control Aircraft/Paintball Physics/Paintball for 40+
http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/


26 Feb 2005 15:47:56
Tony Sr.
Re: Issues Papers

Gary you are without a doubt the smartest person I know when it comes to
paintball and physics in general.
I found you back in 1999 when you had the asshole Ronnin try to school you.
well these guys here in this NG don't even know 2 % of what you know. you
since moved to Chicago I think and how is your son ? he must be playing
paintball also.the Magnus force and all the other things I learned from you
are mindbogling. Jeff if you read this ...give it up your way out of your
league against Gary....................amargio1 aka Tony sr.
"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com > wrote in message
news:cls021pm1160qb0v6u0nmcibtbtkg2u6je@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:09:24 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >news:rfrs11hmhlegg1chgtiloc9bja0pq2a64j@4ax.com...
> >> First problem. I have been wrestling with the physics of paintballs
> >> for awhile and have had numerous discussions with poeple in this group
> >> and more recently those who have visited my website. My take is the
> >> physics is not simple, and in fact the more I learn about aerodynamic
> >> forces on a ball, the more I am amazed at the complications. First
> >
> >Let us just say that we could boil down the physics to a few key points.
If
> >you *REALLY* want to make it overly complicated, you could do a whole
> >assload of energy evaluations and drag coefficients, and blah blah blah.
> >
> >The force of friction applied to an object that has the force of expelled
> >gas set behind it is almost negligeble in comparison for the 12" or so
that
> >it travels inside the barrel, otherwise the ball would never reach
300fps,
> >right? To worry about the minutia is to miss all the trees through the
> >forest.
>
> No, the force of friction cannot be negligable and the actual flight
> of paintballs bears this out. A painball should never rotate at all
> if friction, and even worse, differential friction was not operating.
> That differential friction can be from barrel contact and unbalanced
> gas flow past the ball. We all would like to boil it down to a "few
> key points" physics-wise, but that is part of my point. Iit may not be
> a few key points, and we have no really good idea what trees the
> forest of possible physical forces and effects is composed of.
> >
> >Quite simply, ignore the physics if you like. SOMEONE get me a
substantial
> >quantity of factor controlled data of paint shot from a variety of
barrels
> >where the paint size remains relatively constant and the barrel size is
> >changed around it. I won't even begin to address the "WHY" of the
question,
> >I just want to see "WHAT" actually happens.
>
> I do not argue that experiments are not good, only that we are stuck
> with what we can do. Given the money to do calculations or do the
> experiments, I would choose the experiments every time. However, the
> poor mans methods are first conjecture and hypothesizing.
>
> >
> >> possible it will touch one side with more contact than another. The
> >> ball will experience a resistive drag force on the contact side; this
> >> will cause the ball to spin. Depending on other contacts down the
> >
> >A) It will spin only if there is enough drag to fully rotate the ball
AND
> >keep it spinning for the entire flight
>
> Not true, you do not need to fully rotate the ball. We are talking
> about forces here. Go back to Newton's three laws. You apply a force,
> even an instantaneous force, in a particular direction and the object
> will tend to follow the force. The amount of induced spin depends on
> contact time.
>
> >B) Barrels these days are polished to a mirror shine. You have to
> >intentionally rough up a barrel AND bend it in a funky way to
intentionally
> >induce spin. Every other barrel is smooth as silk. You *REALLY* think
> >you're going to get an appreciable level of friction on a quality
straight
> >barrel?
>
> Absolutely! We know bending a barrel works to spin ball. However, a
> mirror shine and the straightest barrel on earth does not negate
> friction effects. High polish certainly will reduce frictional effects
> compared to a rough, or scratched barrel. However, frictional forces
> can arise in a number of ways. For instance, the type and texture of
> the ball surface, capilary forces between the barrel and any kind of
> film on the ball, The humidity of the air which will likely affect not
> onlly the ball size, but the contact forces between the ball and the
> barrel.
> >
> >> Second, in addition to the frictional contact force, air can possibly
> >> blow past the ball in the barrel at the same time. This will cause
> >
> >The ball accelerates in the first 8", then decelerates from there.
Simply
> >put, the ball WILL be moving faster than the air as it exits the gun, so
no
> >overblow.
>
> Hard to believe. Basically your saying that as the ball leaves the
> barrel, you have a vacuum in the barrel. The ball could well
> decelerate after the first 8", I don't know. However, that does not
> mean the air is moving slower than the ball, only that it is not
> supplying sufficient force to overcome drag effects in the barrel. By
> the way, this statement is inconsistent with your mirror finish - lack
> of friction argument above.
> >
> >> However, the word bouncing should be used very carefully. We may be
> >> taking about microns here.
> >
> >That's about the size of it.
> >
> >> True, except for the Tom Kaye's data, there is little reliable data.
> >
> >I'd like to see that data. Although, it might not be as independant as I
> >might like, him being a gun/barrel manufacturer and all. What I would
MOST
> >like to see is someone test these things who is totally independant.
>
> Go to the AGD forums. I am not sure if the data is still there or not.
> Tom did not give us all the data, but he graciously presented enough
> to give me pause for more profound thought on the physics of
> paintballs.
> >
> >> As for the barrel/paint match the only way to test this is not with
> >> paintballs, but perfectly machined or formed and matched plastic
> >> balls. In addtion, few people can afford the high speed equipment to
> >
> >As noted in another post, we're talking about paintballs, not paintball
> >sized plastic bits. I'm willing to concede some precision in favor of
> >accomplishing the goal itself. A p<0.05 test is a standard level of
> >significance. I don't much care WHY what's happening is happening, I'd
just
> >like to know if the accuracy is truly significantly affected, and not
just
> >hear a whole bunch of hyperbole.
> >
> But you have to care about the WHY something is happening. You have to
> consider how you are going to separate all the other potential reasons
> for inaccuracy from the one you are focusing on. You have one thesis
> your after - barrel/paint match. I am suggesting there are many
> factors involved that may affect accuracy of which only one is
> barrel/paint match.
>
> >> I percieve ths a little different. It is in everyone's interest to
> >> know the truth.
> >
> >Everyone including the people making a bundle selling an unsuspecting
public
> >on the notion that they need to buy more barrels to ensure a proper paint
to
> >barrel match? Oh, my, it's cute how naive you are! ;)
>
> I was not considering commercial "truth", but truth in its broadest
> sense.
> >
> >So you are not lucky because all you have to do is say
> >> something is untrue, your just taking the easy way out.
> >
> >It's true. I am taking the easy way out. In logical terms though, all
I've
> >done is say "prove it". Hell, just SUPPORT it. Even theories tend to
have
> >data associated with them, religious arguments notwithstanding, of
course.
> >
> >> pontificates, and nothing gets solved. As you say, since we have very
> >> little data to deal with, anyone's speculation is just as good as
> >> another. Without data my explanation is just as good as yours. So why
> >
> >Actually, my position does not require proof of any kind. There is a
claim
> >made by people who wish to sell barrels, that matching barrel to paint
and
> >vice versa will increase accuracy. I don't believe them. To them I say
> >"prove it". I'm not making any statement of fact save for one: You have
> >not proven your claim to be true. Until they prove it to be true,
> >independantly, statistically and scientifically, I will never believe
them.
>
> Sceptisim is good. Too few people do use it when purchasing equipment,
> but without proof your statements are no better or worse than the
> manufacturers inferences. For all we know both you and the
> manufactureres are flim-flam experts. So who should we believe? You
> made statements which supposedly use simple physics to suggest the
> barrel/paint match is hogwash. I find your arguments incomplete and
> misleading. However, I respect and applaud your efforts of raising
> the issue and warning people. That is a good public service, so that
> the completely clueless can realize that they may be spending their
> money foolishly.
> >> reasonable sounding is always correct either. Even if I sorround my
> >> ideas with complicated calculations does not mean my theory is any
> >> better.
> >
> >True, but still, there's nothing to even pontificate about in terms of
data,
> >so we're kind of left standing here with little more than a bible in our
> >hands and the statements of others that every word in it is the gospel
> >truth. Sorry, but I don't buy religion, why should I buy a hundred
barrels?
> >;)
> >
> >> personal frustration is that the level of calculation in this realm of
> >> aerodynamics is rather sophisticated and complicated to understand.
> >
> >Don't worry about the why for now. Just worry about whether it actually
> >does or does not help(sizing the paint to barrels, that is)
> >
> >If you REALLY find a causal link using fancy physics and high tech
cameras
> >and whatnot, and make a barrel that solves some fundamental problem, I
> >guarantee you that you will be a rich man.
>
> I doubt there will be any magic barrel fix. All the physics can do is
> assist us in deciding is what can or cannot be controlled. I have a
> suspicion that without radical changes to paintball design and then
> the necessary marker redisigns to throw them, we will not see much
> improvement in accuracy. The military learned this a long time ago.
> Why did cannon go from round shot to bullet shaped shells?
> Gary Dyrkacz
> REMOVETHISBEFORESENDINGdyrgcmn@comcast.net
> Radio Control Aircraft/Paintball Physics/Paintball for 40+
> http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/




26 Feb 2005 19:45:51
Volt
Re: Issues Papers

Ayar wrote:

>
> I'd buy that.

Me too. We need to start an ad company specifically to market JG
memorabilia. Autographed pics of Jeff on the toilet in the morning
reading the paper, leftover chicken bones from meals, Jeff's dog's
turds, old pairs of underwear...we'd make millions. ;-)

--

Volt
Now with less sig!


26 Feb 2005 15:42:04
Gary Dyrkacz
Re: Issues Papers

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:47:56 GMT, "Tony Sr." <amargio1@san.rr.com >
wrote:

>Gary you are without a doubt the smartest person I know when it comes to
>paintball and physics in general.

Thank you, but I believe there are many other people on this group who
are smarter than me and know more than me. Some have written to me,
and I believe they can run rings around what I know. They just need
to put the effort in. I used to think I knew something about paintball
physics. The more I think about it, the less sure I am of what I know
and the more sure I need to know a lot more. I could probably get a
second PhD studying this stuff, if I had the time and energy. Hey,
there are people out there who make livings working on sports ball
aerodynamics and physics!

>I found you back in 1999 when you had the asshole Ronnin try to school you.
>well these guys here in this NG don't even know 2 % of what you know. you
>since moved to Chicago I think and how is your son ?

Well, I was born and raised in Chicago. I did do some work at Penn.
State U. for a couple of years, but my professional work took me back
to the Chicago suburbs 25 yrs ago.
My son has not had much time to play lately. He is finishing his last
year in college. I still play a bit, but I hope both of us can team
back up to play more this summer. I am a poor to mediocre player at
best. I am usually the oldest player on the field, but I still
enjoy playing. Hey, I even treated myself to a Dye SS barrel for my
Tippmann Pro-lite last year.
I wish more Dads would get involved in playing paintball with their
kids. I see so many fathers go to the paintball field and just sit
there while their kids play for hours. It is llike they feel they are
too old for this stuff. I still remember a couple of years ago coming
off the field, removing my mask and another father coming off the same
field next to me removes his mask, looks over at me and says "Hey,
another grey hair! I am not alone!"

The great thing about paintball is that it is an age leveler. You can
get shot by a 14 year old as easily as you can by a 60+ year old. At
least playing, no matter how good or bad, makes me feel younger than
I am. Any kids reading this, drag your fathers to the screen and let
them read this. Better yet direct them to my website article for 40+
paintball players.

he must be playing
>paintball also.the Magnus force and all the other things I learned from you
>are mindbogling. Jeff if you read this ...give it up your way out of your
>league against Gary....................amargio1 aka Tony sr.
>"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:cls021pm1160qb0v6u0nmcibtbtkg2u6je@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 07:09:24 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
>> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> >news:rfrs11hmhlegg1chgtiloc9bja0pq2a64j@4ax.com...
>> >> First problem. I have been wrestling with the physics of paintballs
>> >> for awhile and have had numerous discussions with poeple in this group
>> >> and more recently those who have visited my website. My take is the
>> >> physics is not simple, and in fact the more I learn about aerodynamic
>> >> forces on a ball, the more I am amazed at the complications. First
>> >
>> >Let us just say that we could boil down the physics to a few key points.
>If
>> >you *REALLY* want to make it overly complicated, you could do a whole
>> >assload of energy evaluations and drag coefficients, and blah blah blah.
>> >
>> >The force of friction applied to an object that has the force of expelled
>> >gas set behind it is almost negligeble in comparison for the 12" or so
>that
>> >it travels inside the barrel, otherwise the ball would never reach
>300fps,
>> >right? To worry about the minutia is to miss all the trees through the
>> >forest.
>>
>> No, the force of friction cannot be negligable and the actual flight
>> of paintballs bears this out. A painball should never rotate at all
>> if friction, and even worse, differential friction was not operating.
>> That differential friction can be from barrel contact and unbalanced
>> gas flow past the ball. We all would like to boil it down to a "few
>> key points" physics-wise, but that is part of my point. Iit may not be
>> a few key points, and we have no really good idea what trees the
>> forest of possible physical forces and effects is composed of.
>> >
>> >Quite simply, ignore the physics if you like. SOMEONE get me a
>substantial
>> >quantity of factor controlled data of paint shot from a variety of
>barrels
>> >where the paint size remains relatively constant and the barrel size is
>> >changed around it. I won't even begin to address the "WHY" of the
>question,
>> >I just want to see "WHAT" actually happens.
>>
>> I do not argue that experiments are not good, only that we are stuck
>> with what we can do. Given the money to do calculations or do the
>> experiments, I would choose the experiments every time. However, the
>> poor mans methods are first conjecture and hypothesizing.
>>
>> >
>> >> possible it will touch one side with more contact than another. The
>> >> ball will experience a resistive drag force on the contact side; this
>> >> will cause the ball to spin. Depending on other contacts down the
>> >
>> >A) It will spin only if there is enough drag to fully rotate the ball
>AND
>> >keep it spinning for the entire flight
>>
>> Not true, you do not need to fully rotate the ball. We are talking
>> about forces here. Go back to Newton's three laws. You apply a force,
>> even an instantaneous force, in a particular direction and the object
>> will tend to follow the force. The amount of induced spin depends on
>> contact time.
>>
>> >B) Barrels these days are polished to a mirror shine. You have to
>> >intentionally rough up a barrel AND bend it in a funky way to
>intentionally
>> >induce spin. Every other barrel is smooth as silk. You *REALLY* think
>> >you're going to get an appreciable level of friction on a quality
>straight
>> >barrel?
>>
>> Absolutely! We know bending a barrel works to spin ball. However, a
>> mirror shine and the straightest barrel on earth does not negate
>> friction effects. High polish certainly will reduce frictional effects
>> compared to a rough, or scratched barrel. However, frictional forces
>> can arise in a number of ways. For instance, the type and texture of
>> the ball surface, capilary forces between the barrel and any kind of
>> film on the ball, The humidity of the air which will likely affect not
>> onlly the ball size, but the contact forces between the ball and the
>> barrel.
>> >
>> >> Second, in addition to the frictional contact force, air can possibly
>> >> blow past the ball in the barrel at the same time. This will cause
>> >
>> >The ball accelerates in the first 8", then decelerates from there.
>Simply
>> >put, the ball WILL be moving faster than the air as it exits the gun, so
>no
>> >overblow.
>>
>> Hard to believe. Basically your saying that as the ball leaves the
>> barrel, you have a vacuum in the barrel. The ball could well
>> decelerate after the first 8", I don't know. However, that does not
>> mean the air is moving slower than the ball, only that it is not
>> supplying sufficient force to overcome drag effects in the barrel. By
>> the way, this statement is inconsistent with your mirror finish - lack
>> of friction argument above.
>> >
>> >> However, the word bouncing should be used very carefully. We may be
>> >> taking about microns here.
>> >
>> >That's about the size of it.
>> >
>> >> True, except for the Tom Kaye's data, there is little reliable data.
>> >
>> >I'd like to see that data. Although, it might not be as independant as I
>> >might like, him being a gun/barrel manufacturer and all. What I would
>MOST
>> >like to see is someone test these things who is totally independant.
>>
>> Go to the AGD forums. I am not sure if the data is still there or not.
>> Tom did not give us all the data, but he graciously presented enough
>> to give me pause for more profound thought on the physics of
>> paintballs.
>> >
>> >> As for the barrel/paint match the only way to test this is not with
>> >> paintballs, but perfectly machined or formed and matched plastic
>> >> balls. In addtion, few people can afford the high speed equipment to
>> >
>> >As noted in another post, we're talking about paintballs, not paintball
>> >sized plastic bits. I'm willing to concede some precision in favor of
>> >accomplishing the goal itself. A p<0.05 test is a standard level of
>> >significance. I don't much care WHY what's happening is happening, I'd
>just
>> >like to know if the accuracy is truly significantly affected, and not
>just
>> >hear a whole bunch of hyperbole.
>> >
>> But you have to care about the WHY something is happening. You have to
>> consider how you are going to separate all the other potential reasons
>> for inaccuracy from the one you are focusing on. You have one thesis
>> your after - barrel/paint match. I am suggesting there are many
>> factors involved that may affect accuracy of which only one is
>> barrel/paint match.
>>
>> >> I percieve ths a little different. It is in everyone's interest to
>> >> know the truth.
>> >
>> >Everyone including the people making a bundle selling an unsuspecting
>public
>> >on the notion that they need to buy more barrels to ensure a proper paint
>to
>> >barrel match? Oh, my, it's cute how naive you are! ;)
>>
>> I was not considering commercial "truth", but truth in its broadest
>> sense.
>> >
>> >So you are not lucky because all you have to do is say
>> >> something is untrue, your just taking the easy way out.
>> >
>> >It's true. I am taking the easy way out. In logical terms though, all
>I've
>> >done is say "prove it". Hell, just SUPPORT it. Even theories tend to
>have
>> >data associated with them, religious arguments notwithstanding, of
>course.
>> >
>> >> pontificates, and nothing gets solved. As you say, since we have very
>> >> little data to deal with, anyone's speculation is just as good as
>> >> another. Without data my explanation is just as good as yours. So why
>> >
>> >Actually, my position does not require proof of any kind. There is a
>claim
>> >made by people who wish to sell barrels, that matching barrel to paint
>and
>> >vice versa will increase accuracy. I don't believe them. To them I say
>> >"prove it". I'm not making any statement of fact save for one: You have
>> >not proven your claim to be true. Until they prove it to be true,
>> >independantly, statistically and scientifically, I will never believe
>them.
>>
>> Sceptisim is good. Too few people do use it when purchasing equipment,
>> but without proof your statements are no better or worse than the
>> manufacturers inferences. For all we know both you and the
>> manufactureres are flim-flam experts. So who should we believe? You
>> made statements which supposedly use simple physics to suggest the
>> barrel/paint match is hogwash. I find your arguments incomplete and
>> misleading. However, I respect and applaud your efforts of raising
>> the issue and warning people. That is a good public service, so that
>> the completely clueless can realize that they may be spending their
>> money foolishly.
>> >> reasonable sounding is always correct either. Even if I sorround my
>> >> ideas with complicated calculations does not mean my theory is any
>> >> better.
>> >
>> >True, but still, there's nothing to even pontificate about in terms of
>data,
>> >so we're kind of left standing here with little more than a bible in our
>> >hands and the statements of others that every word in it is the gospel
>> >truth. Sorry, but I don't buy religion, why should I buy a hundred
>barrels?
>> >;)
>> >
>> >> personal frustration is that the level of calculation in this realm of
>> >> aerodynamics is rather sophisticated and complicated to understand.
>> >
>> >Don't worry about the why for now. Just worry about whether it actually
>> >does or does not help(sizing the paint to barrels, that is)
>> >
>> >If you REALLY find a causal link using fancy physics and high tech
>cameras
>> >and whatnot, and make a barrel that solves some fundamental problem, I
>> >guarantee you that you will be a rich man.
>>
>> I doubt there will be any magic barrel fix. All the physics can do is
>> assist us in deciding is what can or cannot be controlled. I have a
>> suspicion that without radical changes to paintball design and then
>> the necessary marker redisigns to throw them, we will not see much
>> improvement in accuracy. The military learned this a long time ago.
>> Why did cannon go from round shot to bullet shaped shells?
>> Gary Dyrkacz
>> REMOVETHISBEFORESENDINGdyrgcmn@comcast.net
>> Radio Control Aircraft/Paintball Physics/Paintball for 40+
>> http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/
>

Gary Dyrkacz
REMOVETHISBEFORESENDINGdyrgcmn@comcast.net
Radio Control Aircraft/Paintball Physics/Paintball for 40+
http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/


26 Feb 2005 21:50:32
Ayar
Re: Issues Papers


"Volt" <nothanks@mr.spammer > wrote in message
news:Pl4Ud.26165$Yf5.2467758@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Ayar wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd buy that.
>
> Me too. We need to start an ad company specifically to market JG
> memorabilia. Autographed pics of Jeff on the toilet in the morning
> reading the paper, leftover chicken bones from meals, Jeff's dog's turds,
> old pairs of underwear...we'd make millions. ;-)


Already ahead of you. I personally own five sets of Jeff On The John
trading cards, including the rare "Post-Thanksgiving Marathon Dump" limited
edition hologram card and the Jolly Green Giant Corn Niblets mail-in
exclusive, I have a leather jacket from P. Diddy's "Jeffz Dogz Turdz"
clothing line and four pairs of Gosleroos underpants (two of which I got
from a vending machine in Japan), I have 2 Von Goslin size 300 trucker caps,
and I also own a Hamilton Beach Magic-Jef deep fryer. I also own the
complete Jeff Goslin toy line, including the Jeff Goslin Inaction Figure
with Easy Chair and Hungry-Man Dinner, the Talking Jeff Goslin (pull the
string and it tells you how it would have pulled the string differently),
and the Jeff Goslin Mr. Microphone (Because Anybody Can Be On The Radio!
(TM))

My wife also owns the Jeff Goslin Vibrator, which shuts itself off after 10
seconds. (Guaranteed to Disappoint Every Woman, Every Time!(TM)

As you can see, I'm a big fan.

:-)

Ayar
Now taking pre-orders for Goslinks Maple-Flavored Breakfast Sausages




26 Feb 2005 21:53:37
Ayar
Re: Issues Papers


"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com > wrote in message
news:alp121pv72kf35p2umktbasgirg1vt0om7@4ax.com...
> I wish more Dads would get involved in playing paintball with their
> kids.

When I have kids, that's the kind of dad I want to be.





26 Feb 2005 23:18:56
Tony Sr.
Re: Issues Papers

I really don't (can"t) play anymore....65 now and need lots of new body
parts....hope I can get them, well my son is playing still...he is 14 and
plays for san diego aftermath who just won the div 3 x-ball at the L.A.
OPEN....undefeated, no loses...pretty proud pappy me.
this team has been put together by Mike Hinman of DYNASTY and he is doing
great job with these kids. look for them to be in the running this year at
almost all the major tourneys nppl psp etc..
"Ayar" <autococker@NOSPAMinsightbb.com > wrote in message
news:Bd6Ud.58743$tl3.11665@attbi_s02...
>
> "Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:alp121pv72kf35p2umktbasgirg1vt0om7@4ax.com...
> > I wish more Dads would get involved in playing paintball with their
> > kids.
>
> When I have kids, that's the kind of dad I want to be.
>
>
>




26 Feb 2005 23:23:16
LCT Paintball
Re: Issues Papers

> Already ahead of you. I personally own five sets of Jeff On The John
> trading cards, including the rare "Post-Thanksgiving Marathon Dump"
> limited


Are they the scratch and sniff type?




27 Feb 2005 03:51:09
Volt
Re: Issues Papers

Ayar wrote:
> "Volt" <nothanks@mr.spammer> wrote in message
> news:Pl4Ud.26165$Yf5.2467758@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
>>Ayar wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'd buy that.
>>
>>Me too. We need to start an ad company specifically to market JG
>>memorabilia. Autographed pics of Jeff on the toilet in the morning
>>reading the paper, leftover chicken bones from meals, Jeff's dog's turds,
>>old pairs of underwear...we'd make millions. ;-)
>
>
>
> Already ahead of you. I personally own five sets of Jeff On The John
> trading cards, including the rare "Post-Thanksgiving Marathon Dump" limited
> edition hologram card and the Jolly Green Giant Corn Niblets mail-in
> exclusive, I have a leather jacket from P. Diddy's "Jeffz Dogz Turdz"
> clothing line and four pairs of Gosleroos underpants (two of which I got
> from a vending machine in Japan), I have 2 Von Goslin size 300 trucker caps,
> and I also own a Hamilton Beach Magic-Jef deep fryer. I also own the
> complete Jeff Goslin toy line, including the Jeff Goslin Inaction Figure
> with Easy Chair and Hungry-Man Dinner, the Talking Jeff Goslin (pull the
> string and it tells you how it would have pulled the string differently),
> and the Jeff Goslin Mr. Microphone (Because Anybody Can Be On The Radio!
> (TM))
>
> My wife also owns the Jeff Goslin Vibrator, which shuts itself off after 10
> seconds. (Guaranteed to Disappoint Every Woman, Every Time!(TM)
>
> As you can see, I'm a big fan.
>
> :-)
>
> Ayar
> Now taking pre-orders for Goslinks Maple-Flavored Breakfast Sausages
>
>

I don't think I've laughed that hard in a long time. Nice one, Ayar.

--

Volt
Now with less sig!


27 Feb 2005 02:33:09
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com > wrote in message
news:cls021pm1160qb0v6u0nmcibtbtkg2u6je@4ax.com...
> No, the force of friction cannot be negligable and the actual flight
> of paintballs bears this out. A painball should never rotate at all
> if friction, and even worse, differential friction was not operating.

Pay attention, sparky, I never sais it was NOT operating, what I said was
that it was NEGLIGEBLE. Yes, if there were no friction, the ball would not
rotate, but I already granted that the ball was rotating, but that the
rotation in question was not worthy of noting.

> >A) It will spin only if there is enough drag to fully rotate the ball
AND
> >keep it spinning for the entire flight
>
> Not true, you do not need to fully rotate the ball. We are talking

A) Full rotation of the ball is an assumption for dramatic effect. Yes,
you do not need to have total rotation for the ball to be affected by the
airflow, but you DO need it to be fully rotated to see appreciable
affectation of the ball. If not, you won't see appreciable affectation.

> >B) Barrels these days are polished to a mirror shine. You have to
>
> Absolutely! We know bending a barrel works to spin ball. However, a
> mirror shine and the straightest barrel on earth does not negate
> friction effects.

I don't doubt that there are "some" friction effects on paintballs, but what
I am saying is that those friction effects are more or less negligeble in
the grand scheme of things.

> can arise in a number of ways. For instance, the type and texture of
> the ball surface, capilary forces between the barrel and any kind of
> film on the ball, The humidity of the air which will likely affect not
> onlly the ball size, but the contact forces between the ball and the
> barrel.

In laymans terms, "blah blah blah". It just doesn't matter what the physics
involved are. What matters is the outcome of those physical properties, not
the actual physics of each equation. Sorry to say, but the layperson just
doesn't care WHY these things are happening, just *THAT* these things are
happening.

> Hard to believe. Basically your saying that as the ball leaves the
> barrel, you have a vacuum in the barrel. The ball could well

Well, more or less, yes. The bottom line is that despite admonitions to the
contrary, if a ball leaves the gun at a speed of 300fps and the air behind
it is moving at 299 fps, it simply will not catch the ball, no matter what
other physics are involved. Period, end of discussion, end of story, bottom
line. The method that a paintball fires faster than it's surrounding air is
simple: it accelerates for 8" and then maintains a more or less steady
speed, a speed that the surrounding air can't match.

> But you have to care about the WHY something is happening. You have to

Why do I have to care why it's happening? I'm just a poor workin boy, I
don't know shit from a shovel, why should I care what the specifics are?

> >Everyone including the people making a bundle selling an unsuspecting
public
> >on the notion that they need to buy more barrels to ensure a proper paint
to
> >barrel match? Oh, my, it's cute how naive you are! ;)
>
> I was not considering commercial "truth", but truth in its broadest
> sense.

Aye, there's the rub! ;)

> >Actually, my position does not require proof of any kind. There is a
claim
> >made by people who wish to sell barrels, that matching barrel to paint
and
> >vice versa will increase accuracy. I don't believe them. To them I say
> >"prove it". I'm not making any statement of fact save for one: You have
> >not proven your claim to be true. Until they prove it to be true,
> >independantly, statistically and scientifically, I will never believe
them.
>
> Sceptisim is good. Too few people do use it when purchasing equipment,

"Skepticism". Shit, no wonder this country is going to hell in a
handbasket, even the people who present themselves as experts can barely
write....

> but without proof your statements are no better or worse than the
> manufacturers inferences. For all we know both you and the
> manufactureres are flim-flam experts.

That's right, for all we know, we both are. However, what you fail to grasp
is that my position does not require support in ANY way. I can say "no it
don't" til the cows come home, and the only thing I would have lost is face,
something that I'm more than willing to give up.

> improvement in accuracy. The military learned this a long time ago.
> Why did cannon go from round shot to bullet shaped shells?

That's hardly relevant. There is plenty of evidence to support the
aerodynamic nature of a conical shell, but the practicality of the matter
prohibit's it from being implemented in the case of paintball. You can
argue military shell physics all day long, and it simply won't matter as far
as paintball is concerned, because we can't get a conical shell to go into a
barrel and have it act as it does inside a standard rifled musket.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





27 Feb 2005 21:21:39
Ayar
Re: Issues Papers


"LCT Paintball" <nospampleasemnotlyon@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:Ex7Ud.4583$r55.4033@attbi_s52...
>> Already ahead of you. I personally own five sets of Jeff On The John
>> trading cards, including the rare "Post-Thanksgiving Marathon Dump"
>> limited
>
>
> Are they the scratch and sniff type?
>

Thankfully...

YES!




27 Feb 2005 21:22:46
Ayar
Re: Issues Papers


"Volt" <nothanks@mr.spammer > wrote in message
news:NsbUd.26201$Yf5.2516619@twister.southeast.rr.com...

> I don't think I've laughed that hard in a long time. Nice one, Ayar.
>


Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed it. What can I say, Jeff inspires me!

:-)

P.S. Love ya, Jeff!





27 Feb 2005 21:24:15
Ayar
Re: Issues Papers


"Tony Sr." <amargio1@san.rr.com > wrote in message
news:At7Ud.33479$xX3.32958@twister.socal.rr.com...
>I really don't (can"t) play anymore....65 now and need lots of new body
> parts....hope I can get them, well my son is playing still...he is 14 and
> plays for san diego aftermath who just won the div 3 x-ball at the L.A.
> OPEN....undefeated, no loses...pretty proud pappy me.
> this team has been put together by Mike Hinman of DYNASTY and he is doing
> great job with these kids. look for them to be in the running this year at
> almost all the major tourneys nppl psp etc..


You must be proud Tony. Congrats on your son's continuing success!

:-)




27 Feb 2005 21:46:46
Tony Sr.
Re: Issues Papers

thx my friend, yes I am proud but a lot of work goes into this tourny ball
believe it or not....the practices alone I would not like to play....I will
share your message with Marcello. ;-)
"Ayar" <autococker@NOSPAMinsightbb.com > wrote in message
news:3UqUd.70869$4q6.59733@attbi_s01...
>
> "Tony Sr." <amargio1@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:At7Ud.33479$xX3.32958@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >I really don't (can"t) play anymore....65 now and need lots of new body
> > parts....hope I can get them, well my son is playing still...he is 14
and
> > plays for san diego aftermath who just won the div 3 x-ball at the L.A.
> > OPEN....undefeated, no loses...pretty proud pappy me.
> > this team has been put together by Mike Hinman of DYNASTY and he is
doing
> > great job with these kids. look for them to be in the running this year
at
> > almost all the major tourneys nppl psp etc..
>
>
> You must be proud Tony. Congrats on your son's continuing success!
>
> :-)
>
>




26 Feb 2005 15:14:03
Phelps
Re: Issues Papers

In article <d1s021d8j1mar48ph58llvc9j417g9stnd@4ax.com >,
Gary Dyrkacz <dyrgcmn@attbi.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 04:40:00 GMT, "EDTHEWARD" <BLARG@BLARG.NET> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com> wrote in message
> >news:rfrs11hmhlegg1chgtiloc9bja0pq2a64j@4ax.com...

> >and of course paintballs are never perfect and never the same. best outcome
> >is an average.
>
> You are partially correct. What ersatz (perfect) paintballs would do
> is give you a baseline from which to judge the problem with real
> paintballs. You would still have to do all the barrel/paint matching
> studies, but now you would have a reliable reference base to make
> comparisons against.

No, that is absolutely wrong. The whole point of the "paint/barrel
matching is pointless" argument ISN'T that there are no effects; that is
inane. The argument is that THE IMPERFECTIONS IN THE PAINT itself cause
so much inaccuracy that the "signal" of the paint/barrel match is lost
in the wonky paint "noise".

If you want to put plastic spheres in a paintball gun and shoot them,
all you are doing is recreating 300 years of ballistic studies from
firearms. What makes this whole argument an argument is the fact that,
from a balistics standpoint, paintballs suck. The argument that Jeff
makes is that it sucks so much that there isn't any significant effect
in matching the barrel to it within .005 inch. Any effect is lost in
the inherent inaccuracy of the paint itself.

--
Phelps <http://www.donotremove.netcolor=#0000FF> >
"Bury me with all my stuff, because you know that it is mine."
-- Master Shake's Suicide Note, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force"


01 Mar 2005 02:51:41
Jeff Goslin
Re: Issues Papers

"Phelps" <phelpscatcher@attbi.com > wrote in message
news:phelpscatcher-C4ADA4.15140326022005@readit1.airnews.net...
> from a balistics standpoint, paintballs suck. The argument that Jeff
> makes is that it sucks so much that there isn't any significant effect
> in matching the barrel to it within .005 inch. Any effect is lost in
> the inherent inaccuracy of the paint itself.

That is shockingly well boiled down. Kudos, chief.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right





01 Mar 2005 08:03:24
Rick Scott
Re: Issues Papers

(Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net > uttered:)
> "EDTHEWARD" <BLARG@BLARG.NET> wrote:
>> Jeff, that font sucks.
>
> I like it. Comic Book something or other. I like it because it's
> different from the normal Times New Roman/Arial kick everyone uses
> because it's the default of Word and Access and Excel. I'm so sick
> of that font.

Funny, it doesn't look any different to me. =)




Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
We, the unrewarded, are tired of doing the impossible for the
ungrateful, while surrounded by the thoughtless doing the
unmentionable. :Jealousy


01 Mar 2005 08:06:56
Rick Scott
Re: Issues Papers

(Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net > uttered:)
> "DGDevin" <dgdevin@worldnet.att.invalid> wrote:
>> Yeah, why go with something that everybody uses because it works,
>> give people a headache just to indulge yourself.
>
> If viewing some font gives you a headache, I suggest you visit your
> nearest nuerophysiologist.

Better yet, tell your browser to override <font face="wingdings" >
or whatever foolishness Jeff put in there, and replace it with
something you find more legible. Put the power of presentation back
where it belongs.




Rick
--
key CF8F8A75 / print C5C1 F87D 5056 D2C0 D5CE D58F 970F 04D1 CF8F 8A75
What is written without effort is read without pleasure.
:Samuel Johnson


01 Mar 2005 18:02:29
Gary Dyrkacz
Re: Issues Papers

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:14:03 -0600, Phelps <phelpscatcher@attbi.com >
wrote:

>In article <d1s021d8j1mar48ph58llvc9j417g9stnd@4ax.com>,
> Gary Dyrkacz <dyrgcmn@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 04:40:00 GMT, "EDTHEWARD" <BLARG@BLARG.NET> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gary Dyrkacz" <dyrgcmn@attbi.com> wrote in message
>> >news:rfrs11hmhlegg1chgtiloc9bja0pq2a64j@4ax.com...
>
>> >and of course paintballs are never perfect and never the same. best outcome
>> >is an average.
>>
>> You are partially correct. What ersatz (perfect) paintballs would do
>> is give you a baseline from which to judge the problem with real
>> paintballs. You would still have to do all the barrel/paint matching
>> studies, but now you would have a reliable reference base to make
>> comparisons against.
>
> No, that is absolutely wrong. The whole point of the "paint/barrel
>matching is pointless" argument ISN'T that there are no effects; that is
>inane. The argument is that THE IMPERFECTIONS IN THE PAINT itself cause
>so much inaccuracy that the "signal" of the paint/barrel match is lost
>in the wonky paint "noise".

That is a dogmatic statement (argument), completely unproven and
unsupported and as reliable as the manufacturer's claims. You have
given me noy compelling reason to believe what you say. I actually
raised a different argument in a former post in this thread. I have
very little support for my view as well. I offered a different way to
see the problem, because I felt the original by Jeff was incomplete.
Subsequently what I offered was a way to prove one point or another.
My approach is the standard scientific method, reduce the variables to
isolate and study the effects.
>
> If you want to put plastic spheres in a paintball gun and shoot them,
>all you are doing is recreating 300 years of ballistic studies from
>firearms. What makes this whole argument an argument is the fact that,
>from a balistics standpoint, paintballs suck. The argument that Jeff
>makes is that it sucks so much that there isn't any significant effect
>in matching the barrel to it within .005 inch. Any effect is lost in
>the inherent inaccuracy of the paint itself.

Although I may be recreating some subset of firearms history by
examining plastic sphere, just how much of that history applies to
paintball weaponery is open. We are talking low velocity balls here,
which is certainly outside the normal velocity regime of traditional
firearms.

Gary Dyrkacz
REMOVETHISBEFORESENDINGdyrgcmn@comcast.net
Radio Control Aircraft/Paintball Physics/Paintball for 40+
http://home.comcast.net/~dyrgcmn/