O
ollytheosteo
Guest
Just imagine if he'd invented the level 10 bolt in, say, 1992. Paintball would now be called KayeBall.
Length: 10,12,14,16,18?
- Thread starter Bob
- Start date
The glass barrels thing keeps making me think of Denzel Dexter, the crazy American scientist in the Fast Show. I'm sorry, I know that's just me... I'll get me coat...
One would think that all this now could be simulated by computer software..
But with regards to the liquid: Wouldn't that only affect the paintballs accuracy if there were two substances of different viscocity(Sp?) inside the ball itself? I mean obviously it'd have some sort of affect on the verticle placement of the shots (presuming there is only one substance inside the ball(Due to the motion and acceleration/decelleration of the liquid inside, I think)).
Also, wouldn't it be possible to create paintballs by having a tank of substance A, and at the bottom there are injection points for substance B. Substance B is the fill, and A is the shell (Substance A is heavier than B, so B floats in it). Substance A takes say, 3 seconds to react with B, and when it reacts it creates a compound which is tough (i.e. the same toughness as paintball shells..) so by the time B has reached the surface of the tank, a perfect ball has formed, and the balls at the surface are moved onto another area where substance A is cleaned off them..
Only problem is the level of chemicle engineering needed, and so the fill would have to both react with B and be biodegradeable (aswell as the compounder/shell being too).. And they also need to be coloured paint..
Anyway just a though I had before I knew how paintballs were made.
But with regards to the liquid: Wouldn't that only affect the paintballs accuracy if there were two substances of different viscocity(Sp?) inside the ball itself? I mean obviously it'd have some sort of affect on the verticle placement of the shots (presuming there is only one substance inside the ball(Due to the motion and acceleration/decelleration of the liquid inside, I think)).
Also, wouldn't it be possible to create paintballs by having a tank of substance A, and at the bottom there are injection points for substance B. Substance B is the fill, and A is the shell (Substance A is heavier than B, so B floats in it). Substance A takes say, 3 seconds to react with B, and when it reacts it creates a compound which is tough (i.e. the same toughness as paintball shells..) so by the time B has reached the surface of the tank, a perfect ball has formed, and the balls at the surface are moved onto another area where substance A is cleaned off them..
Only problem is the level of chemicle engineering needed, and so the fill would have to both react with B and be biodegradeable (aswell as the compounder/shell being too).. And they also need to be coloured paint..
Anyway just a though I had before I knew how paintballs were made.
RE: Robbo:
I'm aware of Tom Kaye's studies (though I wasn't fortunate enough to see them take place in person, like you. I had to make due with low-res images and 10 page desriptions), but I was under the impression that those focused mostly on the effects of rifling, porting and bore size on the flight of a ball. I didn't remember reading anything regarding length (though it's been quite a while since I read that). However I think I remember, somebody, I think it was the makers of the "Hammerhead" barrel some years back, doing some research into the subject of barrel length, comparing the same barrel backs with fronts of differing lengths, under equal circumstances (using the same bench-mounted marker in a climate-controlled environment) and measuring the differences, if any. If I remember correctly, they discovered that after a certain length, 18" I do believe, they ran into problems and couldn't get the same performance. Their conclusion (which I don't think they ever completely proved), was that the longer barrels were making such inefficient use of the gas and decelerating the ball to such an extent that, even with additional pressure, the ball wouldn't travel the same distance and/or hit the target with as many shots per grouping (the study wasn't really concerned with the how or why, so that was as far as they went with it). However, this all coming from the memory of an internet article I read somewhere probably 3 or 4 years ago, so I could be wrong. Not to mention that they didn't start to see performance differences until they passed 18", so the whole argument is largely theoretical anyway, since there's maybe a handful of barrels that are available even in 18" lenths, let alone longer.
Basically though, there should be no noticeable difference between barrels ranging from 8" to 16", and since there's very few barrel manufacturers who even make a barrel longer than that, that should sufficiently answer the question originally proposed.
I'm aware of Tom Kaye's studies (though I wasn't fortunate enough to see them take place in person, like you. I had to make due with low-res images and 10 page desriptions), but I was under the impression that those focused mostly on the effects of rifling, porting and bore size on the flight of a ball. I didn't remember reading anything regarding length (though it's been quite a while since I read that). However I think I remember, somebody, I think it was the makers of the "Hammerhead" barrel some years back, doing some research into the subject of barrel length, comparing the same barrel backs with fronts of differing lengths, under equal circumstances (using the same bench-mounted marker in a climate-controlled environment) and measuring the differences, if any. If I remember correctly, they discovered that after a certain length, 18" I do believe, they ran into problems and couldn't get the same performance. Their conclusion (which I don't think they ever completely proved), was that the longer barrels were making such inefficient use of the gas and decelerating the ball to such an extent that, even with additional pressure, the ball wouldn't travel the same distance and/or hit the target with as many shots per grouping (the study wasn't really concerned with the how or why, so that was as far as they went with it). However, this all coming from the memory of an internet article I read somewhere probably 3 or 4 years ago, so I could be wrong. Not to mention that they didn't start to see performance differences until they passed 18", so the whole argument is largely theoretical anyway, since there's maybe a handful of barrels that are available even in 18" lenths, let alone longer.
Basically though, there should be no noticeable difference between barrels ranging from 8" to 16", and since there's very few barrel manufacturers who even make a barrel longer than that, that should sufficiently answer the question originally proposed.
Doc, I wasn't there when Tom did the actual experiments, I just saw the data and went over it with him.
I was however present when he did some research on rapid temperature rise of gases when he was looking into some problems he was having with his RT version of the Automag.
John Sosta did an awful lot of work for Tom at this time and I think if he had been allowed to be more involved and have more say in matters then I honestly think the Automag, in some guise, would be around now.
John is one smart cookie !
Tom's experiments focused on many things, the results he published I think were on rifling etc and spin of the ball but he did a lot of work that wasn't put out there for commercial reasons ... which is kinda ironic when you think how things turned out in the end.
As for what you said re long barrels, I have no doubt that is correct and would be pretty much common sense but it's cool they went and did the tests anyway.
I remember when I first started playing, how popular the Automag was. My parents ended up getting me a Tippmann instead (the Tippmann '98 was new at the time. Those were the days...), but all the "cool" guys had 'em, and adored 'em. They were orgasmic when the E-Mag came out. Ahh, good times. I can't believe I'm only 19. Worst part is, I feel as old as I sound 
Anyway, To tell you the truth, even if they conclusively, incontrovertibly discovered one perfect length, bore size and porting pattern suitable for every marker, the paintball enthusiasts would still find a way to have 30 page forum arguments about all of it. You wouldn't think that it'd make much difference when your goal is to lob an out-of-round gelatin ball full of water-colors across a field no longer than 200 feet
Anyway, To tell you the truth, even if they conclusively, incontrovertibly discovered one perfect length, bore size and porting pattern suitable for every marker, the paintball enthusiasts would still find a way to have 30 page forum arguments about all of it. You wouldn't think that it'd make much difference when your goal is to lob an out-of-round gelatin ball full of water-colors across a field no longer than 200 feet