I thought the whole thing was one flawed argument, and I would have real trouble isolating individual flaws. That would take some real work.
New size paintballs?
- Thread starter Dusty
- Start date
- Status
once again a completely informative and useful post by Q...
suppose i better spell it out..
Explain why it is flawed then.
It's the same. You pull the trigger and a ball doesn't come out is just as frustrating whether it's because it hasn't been 2 seconds yet or your 12 gram is out or there's no more paintballs left from the 10-round tube or a ball just didn't drop when you rocked or you didn't push the whatever it is hard enough to lock the bolt forward. And if you think not being able to shoot for 10 seconds is annoying, imagine how annoying it is not being able to shoot for 15 seconds while changing a 12-gram!
"Fast as you can" and "fast as you are allowed" is the same thing. It's just whether it's mechanically limited (rock and ****) or electronically limited. But even in the electronically limited case, as a player gains more experience, they will become much better at knowing exactly how long 2 seconds is and shooting the gun only every two seconds.
Bon:
You failed the test.
What you posted makes no sense at all. It reeks entirely of someone trying very very hard to post something that makes them look smart and in the process absolutely convinces the audience that they do not have a clue.
Here's a tip, if you follow one paragraph with another paragraph explaining how your first paragraph might not be true after all, what you've just done there is argued that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you would have picked one or the other, not tried to advance both arguments so you can pretend to have been right either way.
Besides, you've missed what really matters entirely. It doesn't matter if MORE is needed. What matters is that DIFFERENT materials are needed. Then the question becomes, are the different materials more or less expensive?
Plus, your logic is dead broken anyway. If a manufacturer must water down anything as much as possible to mass produce it effectively, how come paintballs are not all just filled with 100% water? Clearly a paint company that fills their paint with just water would save the most money on materials and be the most successful, right? And on top of that, not only is the paint cheaper, but if you get thirsty on the field, just pop a pod and you're all set!
When the paint exits the barrel, it's all going in the same direction at the same speed. It is all going to continue to go in the same direction at the same speed unless some force acts on it to change that. That's just basic Newton's 1st Law. If you don't even understand that, you have no business even using the word "physics". Not even "simplified" physics, since classical mechanics *IS* simplified physics!
Here's a tip: If you want to pretend you have any understanding of something, you have to also pretend you are right. If, after spewing a bunch of BS, you then tell people it might not be true, then everyone knows you're full of it, because you just said so!
For future reference, the "Brain Box" forum is designed for people with substantially effective brains to discuss various topics. It is not the box where your brain is stored. Come back when you find that box.
You failed the test.
What you posted makes no sense at all. It reeks entirely of someone trying very very hard to post something that makes them look smart and in the process absolutely convinces the audience that they do not have a clue.
Here's a tip, if you follow one paragraph with another paragraph explaining how your first paragraph might not be true after all, what you've just done there is argued that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you would have picked one or the other, not tried to advance both arguments so you can pretend to have been right either way.
Here's the first example: "While holding some merit" and then "wouldn't realistically work in practice". So what your saying is, it could work, except that it can't work? Does the idea have merit or not? Make up your mind! But no, you couldn't decide what the right answer was, so you just said both, forcing us to read a paragraph that MEANS NOTHING AT ALL!
This sentence doesn't mean anything, because you didn't specify what you mean by "more". More volume? No. More mass? Sure. Which did you mean? If you meant volume, you're clearly wrong, and if you meant mass, then again, you just wrote another sentance that doesn't actually mean anything, because your sentence would say "A heavier fill means heavier ingredients are needed." Gee, thanks for that valuable insight.
Besides, you've missed what really matters entirely. It doesn't matter if MORE is needed. What matters is that DIFFERENT materials are needed. Then the question becomes, are the different materials more or less expensive?
Well, that depends - is the new heavier fill material more or less expensive than the lighter fill material? Or about the same? If it's less expensive or about the same, "watering it down" certainly wouldn't make it more profitable. So right off, your assumption is baseless.
Only if heavier fill is more expensive.
Unless, of course, the manufacturer just paid the costs of having a heavier fill (if a heavier fill is even more expensive than a lighter one).
Plus, your logic is dead broken anyway. If a manufacturer must water down anything as much as possible to mass produce it effectively, how come paintballs are not all just filled with 100% water? Clearly a paint company that fills their paint with just water would save the most money on materials and be the most successful, right? And on top of that, not only is the paint cheaper, but if you get thirsty on the field, just pop a pod and you're all set!
Oh my god! I can't believe we missed that! Stuff obeys laws of physics! It was staring us in the face the whole time!
Simplified is not a synonym for "made entirely wrong".
The ball doesn't deform. It's a sphere with uniform pressure on the surface area of each hemisphere. Also, in order for the paint to get pushed to the back, there has to be empty volume within the sphere, of which there is a negligible amount.
Except it wasn't out of shape.... what shape do you think it was in?
Assuming for a second that the paintball does change shape, how does reverting shape induce spin? The paintball is symmetrical in all directions about the axis of travel. If the left side and right side are the same, is it going to spin left or right? (Answer: The seam, the only part that is not symmetrical, will determine. And the seam is randomly oriented.)
Does the paint get together and vote on who gets to move with the shell and who has to be in the blob? Or is paint divided up into shell followers and blob followers? OR is it just that the lazier paint stays in the blob with most of the other paint and only the more proactive paint moves with the shell?
What if they don't have enough votes? Do the minority still sit against the back of the ball?
When the paint exits the barrel, it's all going in the same direction at the same speed. It is all going to continue to go in the same direction at the same speed unless some force acts on it to change that. That's just basic Newton's 1st Law. If you don't even understand that, you have no business even using the word "physics". Not even "simplified" physics, since classical mechanics *IS* simplified physics!
This is the least wrong part of your post. External forces will change the trajectory of the paintball. If the ball were to be spinning (which it isn't), it has angular momentum, and it takes more force to change the angular momentum, thus reducing the impact of external forces on trajectory.
uh-huh..
What the hell does that mean? Seriously. Leaving a lot of WHAT to be desired?
*IF* there was any spin, this would make the paintballs less accurate, since the divider would be randomly oriented relative to the direction of spin. If the divider happens to be perpendicular to the spin axis, it has no effect. If it's parallel to the spin axis, it has maximum effect. Random resistance to force is the last thing you want for accuracy.
Dead-ass wrong. Additional structure INCREASES strength, not decreases it.
Oh, so this is all possible, unless it isn't possible. Thanks.
Oh, so it IS possible, if it is possible?
Here's a tip: If you want to pretend you have any understanding of something, you have to also pretend you are right. If, after spewing a bunch of BS, you then tell people it might not be true, then everyone knows you're full of it, because you just said so!
An option is not an argument!
For future reference, the "Brain Box" forum is designed for people with substantially effective brains to discuss various topics. It is not the box where your brain is stored. Come back when you find that box.
Ouch!
Well, Chicago butchered Bon's post nicely, no need for me to go over it again. Although I hasten to add that Chi may have been a little harsh at times...
The ONLY thing I disagree with in Chi's post, is this bit:
Unless Chicago meant hemispheres in a top and bottom sense, they do indeed both suffer from equal pressures.
Paintballs do deform when shot though. This doesn't cause them to spin (as rightly pointed out by Chicago), it does cause them to wobble though. But hey, even golfballs do that.
Well, Chicago butchered Bon's post nicely, no need for me to go over it again. Although I hasten to add that Chi may have been a little harsh at times...
The ONLY thing I disagree with in Chi's post, is this bit:
There is no equal pressure on each hemisphere. The hemisphere pointing towards the back end of the gun will get a lot more pressure than the one at the front end, otherwise the paintball would just sit in your gun and do nothing. After all, if equal force is applied from opposing directions, the end result is no movement at all.
Unless Chicago meant hemispheres in a top and bottom sense, they do indeed both suffer from equal pressures.
Paintballs do deform when shot though. This doesn't cause them to spin (as rightly pointed out by Chicago), it does cause them to wobble though. But hey, even golfballs do that.
This is where I stopped reading
Ill take your word for it his post was somewhat correct. As for being harsh, just means I can add someone to my listBuddha 3 said:
That angels are (and always have been, and always will be) total peices of crap one? I had that won in my first post.
A rare opportunity to applaud Chicago. My own point was far broader, and was basically that the main single flaw of the post is that Bon is posting in the brain-box, and yet clearly has no idea what he is talking about. You need experience on a topic to comment wisely on it.
Bon, I really don't remember arguing over your personal opinion about Angels, but if I were you, and I wanted to try to knock me down a peg or 2, I would seriously consider choosing a topic you know more than me about...
...I won't hold my breath.
ps. Chicago totally pwned you, I mean, I just re-read his post, and I'm amazed you even responded to it Bon. He seriously smashed you and left you at the side of the road for dead. The way he picked through your BS was epic. Did you feel embarassed at all?
I disagree.
If 5 guys (never played before) play with splatmasters, for 3 days, then the most dextrous ones will, on the third day, be shooting at a higher rate of fire than the least dextrous, because, up to the point of maximum pheasable cycle-time, improvement is possible.
So therefore you can get better/faster at reloading a splatmaster with practice - (as fast as you can)
Billy ball is strictly limited to a preset maximum. - (as fast as you are allowed)
I will add that I have not used Billy-Ball in a game situation, only on a range, and I'm open to insight from people that have actually played games with it.
- Status