M
martin hammond
Guest
I'd be interested in reading that, nothing beats trigger time and experience. their are too few craftsman and artists in the firearms field not to pay attention when one of them says something.
nodes...
- Thread starter pacecil
- Start date
F
Fred K
Guest
I sure would like to how to set a tuner in seconds !!! With all the above theories why are there more than one sweet spot. Several will shoot about the same. Beau do you know how Bill does it ?
Fred K
F
Fred K
Guest
Knowing how to set in minutes would save me and others a lot of Money.
Speaking of the node, I have move the node at the muzzle with weights. However it turns out that is not the best tune for my rifles!
Fred K
I started this thread for one reason, and that was to discuss a barrel's shape when it vibrates. It's ok that the thread has now moved over into a discussion of how, or if, a tuner works because that's interesting too.
Any way, getting back to that "parallel node", I tried to illustrate what it took to form this sort of shape in a barrel. It takes forces applied as I've shown. I think we are all open to anybody's suggestion as to how you could form the parallel shape without these forces.
These forces do not occur in an ordinary barrel, under ordinary conditions. I'm not disputing anyone, or what they have observed. I'm just trying to find out how, or when, or if, a barrel could exhibit this "parallel node" shape.
The explanation doesn't have to involve any high level of science, or any discussion of waves, sine or otherwise. It doesn't have to involve what happens in the gun or what happens with a tuner. We don't need any definition of "parallel", "straight" or "flat". It can be a "real world" explanation. or a scientific one. The question is, how does a round bar of steel with a hole down it's center takes on that shape shown in the lower picture in the attachment in my first post. Where do the forces come from?
There are some other things I'm sure everyone would like to know. Was the "parallel" node measured or is it just theorized? If it was measured then I'd like to know how this was done. If it's just a theory then that's fine, just tell us and all who want to accept it can
Any way, getting back to that "parallel node", I tried to illustrate what it took to form this sort of shape in a barrel. It takes forces applied as I've shown. I think we are all open to anybody's suggestion as to how you could form the parallel shape without these forces.
These forces do not occur in an ordinary barrel, under ordinary conditions. I'm not disputing anyone, or what they have observed. I'm just trying to find out how, or when, or if, a barrel could exhibit this "parallel node" shape.
The explanation doesn't have to involve any high level of science, or any discussion of waves, sine or otherwise. It doesn't have to involve what happens in the gun or what happens with a tuner. We don't need any definition of "parallel", "straight" or "flat". It can be a "real world" explanation. or a scientific one. The question is, how does a round bar of steel with a hole down it's center takes on that shape shown in the lower picture in the attachment in my first post. Where do the forces come from?
There are some other things I'm sure everyone would like to know. Was the "parallel" node measured or is it just theorized? If it was measured then I'd like to know how this was done. If it's just a theory then that's fine, just tell us and all who want to accept it can
Pacecil,
The term "parallel node" is obviously something Bill Calfee coined. So, only he can answer your question about what it is. He has promised to do that, but things take time. I'll go to his house, where he has promised to show me the experiments that caused him to coin the term. I can write about it as I please, but it's gonna be awhile because of scheduling.
I want to revisit "real world" because I think you misunderstood at least my meaning of it. Vibe said the "parallel node" does not exist in the real world. But it does, because enough people have accepted the term, that something called a "parallel node" now exists. It may be called something else or nothing at all in physics books, but it's there. It's in the real world simply because a group of people have accepted the term. In other words, I could put two poles in my front yard and call one of them the "parallel pole" and it exists. To say that something does not exist is taking a little bit of omniscience upon yourself simply because it does not exist in your limited world. When I say "your" limited world I don't mean you specifically. The vast majority of us live in our own limited world.
The term "parallel node" is obviously something Bill Calfee coined. So, only he can answer your question about what it is. He has promised to do that, but things take time. I'll go to his house, where he has promised to show me the experiments that caused him to coin the term. I can write about it as I please, but it's gonna be awhile because of scheduling.
I want to revisit "real world" because I think you misunderstood at least my meaning of it. Vibe said the "parallel node" does not exist in the real world. But it does, because enough people have accepted the term, that something called a "parallel node" now exists. It may be called something else or nothing at all in physics books, but it's there. It's in the real world simply because a group of people have accepted the term. In other words, I could put two poles in my front yard and call one of them the "parallel pole" and it exists. To say that something does not exist is taking a little bit of omniscience upon yourself simply because it does not exist in your limited world. When I say "your" limited world I don't mean you specifically. The vast majority of us live in our own limited world.
B
B. Harvey
Guest
To have something be parallel, it has to have something to be parallel with. With a node being an X and having a very finite point in the barrel, the antinode is the only part that can have a parallel, which is the middle of the antinode. I have yet to see a rifle shoot worth anything that has the node at the muzzle, all good shooting rifles I have seen have it at least 1.5" or more behind the muzzle.
Put one end of a rod in a vise, now use one hand to hold the rod somewhere behind what would be the muzzle, and use your other hand to bend the tip in one direction or another. Your hand behind the muzzle is the node, and whichever way you bend the tip, the other part of the rod goes in the opposite direction.
When it comes to adding weight, ahead of the muzzle, the node does indeed move towards the muzzle, which you could say 'fools' the barrel into thinking it is longer and therefore has less amlpitude. BUT, without a tuner on the barrel, the node on every barrel I have played with has the node at 80% of free length of the barrel. This would mean a shorter barrel has the node closer to the muzzle already.
If you ring a barrel without it being on the action, the steel of the barrel gives one tone, and the air column inside the barrel gives another tone, usually 2 semitones lower. Now, when you mount it, the tones are reduced to 75% of what they were. When adding the tuner you are adding mass, which would increase the frequency, but by also lengthening the half wave, which is from node (action) to node (behind muzzle), then your are lowering the frequency.
It seems to me, we are either frequency matching the air column to the barrels physical properties and getting the 2 tones to match, or we are tuning what is the entire rifle system.
Put one end of a rod in a vise, now use one hand to hold the rod somewhere behind what would be the muzzle, and use your other hand to bend the tip in one direction or another. Your hand behind the muzzle is the node, and whichever way you bend the tip, the other part of the rod goes in the opposite direction.
When it comes to adding weight, ahead of the muzzle, the node does indeed move towards the muzzle, which you could say 'fools' the barrel into thinking it is longer and therefore has less amlpitude. BUT, without a tuner on the barrel, the node on every barrel I have played with has the node at 80% of free length of the barrel. This would mean a shorter barrel has the node closer to the muzzle already.
If you ring a barrel without it being on the action, the steel of the barrel gives one tone, and the air column inside the barrel gives another tone, usually 2 semitones lower. Now, when you mount it, the tones are reduced to 75% of what they were. When adding the tuner you are adding mass, which would increase the frequency, but by also lengthening the half wave, which is from node (action) to node (behind muzzle), then your are lowering the frequency.
It seems to me, we are either frequency matching the air column to the barrels physical properties and getting the 2 tones to match, or we are tuning what is the entire rifle system.
per Beau, But Bill can set one fast. I mean in seconds. You can go back and run the various tuner setting techniques including the Hopewelll method and you'll end up very close to the same spot he already used. Now, I think Pacecil thinks I believe in magic, but there's science behind that somewhere.
This is not sarcastic. I'm not questioning your statement, or am I questioning any thing you or Calfee has done. I'm simply trying to learn something. I'm assuming you don't shoot the gun, but this may be wrong - just tell me. When Calfee sets the tuner does he touch or feel the barrel as he does it? I realize he has to handle it although he might have you do it. Does he look at, or "listen" to the barrel or tuner? Has he made any measurements of barrel or tuner before he began? Have you shot the gun before and established any thing about the tuner settings?
Are you saying the Hopewell method, other tuning methods, and Calfee's method, all give the same result? Let me put that question a little differently- do you find that all tuning methods give the same result?
This is not sarcastic. I'm not questioning your statement, or am I questioning any thing you or Calfee has done. I'm simply trying to learn something. I'm assuming you don't shoot the gun, but this may be wrong - just tell me. When Calfee sets the tuner does he touch or feel the barrel as he does it? I realize he has to handle it although he might have you do it. Does he look at, or "listen" to the barrel or tuner? Has he made any measurements of barrel or tuner before he began? Have you shot the gun before and established any thing about the tuner settings?
Are you saying the Hopewell method, other tuning methods, and Calfee's method, all give the same result? Let me put that question a little differently- do you find that all tuning methods give the same result?
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
The terms "parallel" and "node" already have VERY distinct, precise, and specific definitions.
To use them to describe a condition that fits NONE of those definitions is simply ignorant. In fact the terms "parallel" and "node" are in fact mutually exclusive - one describes a property of a line, and the other is defined as a single point. Neither of which in any way refer to what happens at the end of a rifle barrel during firing. The "anti-node" is parallel, but only in the middle of the barrel, not past the node at the muzzle. The node, is not parallel to anything and is in fact vibrating in angular orientation.
What Bill has to be refering to is that the linear amplitude of those vibrations decrease to a point "approaching" being parallel to the line of the bore at the node. And at that point - if the bullet exits at one of the points (in time) of slowest change, then the muzzle "approaches" the "limit" of zero change in position ...it "approaches" being "stopped" (as Bill puts it).
If one were to introduce the concept of a "limit" as used in the Calculus - Then, possibly we might get out of the range of simply poluting the language.
But to defend the polution and corruption is not acceptable.
It's almost as bad as trying to find a muzzle break for your 17HRM. (neither of those exist either - it muzzle brake, and 17HMR). For a man who claims to be "all about accuracy" his usage of the language has been anything, except accurate.
To use them to describe a condition that fits NONE of those definitions is simply ignorant. In fact the terms "parallel" and "node" are in fact mutually exclusive - one describes a property of a line, and the other is defined as a single point. Neither of which in any way refer to what happens at the end of a rifle barrel during firing. The "anti-node" is parallel, but only in the middle of the barrel, not past the node at the muzzle. The node, is not parallel to anything and is in fact vibrating in angular orientation.
What Bill has to be refering to is that the linear amplitude of those vibrations decrease to a point "approaching" being parallel to the line of the bore at the node. And at that point - if the bullet exits at one of the points (in time) of slowest change, then the muzzle "approaches" the "limit" of zero change in position ...it "approaches" being "stopped" (as Bill puts it).
If one were to introduce the concept of a "limit" as used in the Calculus - Then, possibly we might get out of the range of simply poluting the language.
But to defend the polution and corruption is not acceptable.
It's almost as bad as trying to find a muzzle break for your 17HRM. (neither of those exist either - it muzzle brake, and 17HMR). For a man who claims to be "all about accuracy" his usage of the language has been anything, except accurate.
Last edited:
M
Markbo
Guest
Just for my own understanding - by free length, do you mean just the portion outside or ahead of the threaded portion at the face of the action or would that include anything that touches the barrel ahead of that, such as a pressure pad or part of the stock?
Don't mean to hijack... I am just trying to make sure I understand everything.
B harvey said, To have something be parallel, it has to have something to be parallel with. With a node being an X and having a very finite point in the barrel, the antinode is the only part that can have a parallel, which is the middle of the antinode
The node is not an x, it is a point on a line. The antinode is not a line, it is a point on a line. The line running through either of these points can be parallel to another line.
Put one end of a rod in a vise, now use one hand to hold the rod somewhere behind what would be the muzzle, and use your other hand to bend the tip in one direction or another. Your hand behind the muzzle is the node, and whichever way you bend the tip, the other part of the rod goes in the opposite direction.
Your "one hand" behind the muzzle is not acting like a node. The other part of the rod goes in the opposite direction because your hand pushed it that way. Your simulation of how a rifle barrel is loaded is not accurate. If you "twist", that is put a moment on the end of the bar at the same time bending it in one direction or the other, leaving off the "one hand". then you would come closer to how a rifle barrel is loaded.
The node is not an x, it is a point on a line. The antinode is not a line, it is a point on a line. The line running through either of these points can be parallel to another line.
Put one end of a rod in a vise, now use one hand to hold the rod somewhere behind what would be the muzzle, and use your other hand to bend the tip in one direction or another. Your hand behind the muzzle is the node, and whichever way you bend the tip, the other part of the rod goes in the opposite direction.
Your "one hand" behind the muzzle is not acting like a node. The other part of the rod goes in the opposite direction because your hand pushed it that way. Your simulation of how a rifle barrel is loaded is not accurate. If you "twist", that is put a moment on the end of the bar at the same time bending it in one direction or the other, leaving off the "one hand". then you would come closer to how a rifle barrel is loaded.
Vibe
The terms "parallel" and "node" already have VERY distinct, precise, and specific definitions.
To use them to describe a condition that fits NONE of those definitions is simply ignorant. In fact the terms "parallel" and "node" are in fact mutually exclusive - one describes a property of a line, and the other is defined as a single point. Neither of which in any way refer to what happens at the end of a rifle barrel during firing. The "anti-node" is parallel, but only in the middle of the barrel, not past the node at the muzzle. The node, is not parallel to anything and is in fact vibrating in angular orientation.
What Bill has to be refering to is that the linear amplitude of those vibrations decrease to a point "approaching" being parallel to the line of the bore at the node. And at that point - if the bullet exits at one of the points (in time) of slowest change, then the muzzle "approaches" the "limit" of zero change in position ...it "approaches" being "stopped" (as Bill puts it).
Vibe
If you do a Google Search for the word Parallel Node you will get zero hits as it pertains to a rifles other than in a Precision Shooting Magazine article by
Bill Calfee.
Parallel Node is actually a slang term with its roots found in Borden,Indianna.It can be found in a very rare slang dictionary and I happen to own the last known copy.I could send it to you but as a single copy its value prevents me from putting it in the mail.
I think the problem here with nodes and anti-nodes Is I am the only guy with the slang dictionary and it keeps telling me to be BEYOND the muzzle.Now Vibe if we add a tube BEYOND the muzzle can you tell me were the node and anti-node are now?
Now for some questions if we use a tube that is beyond the muzzle.
Vibe is it possible to move the node to the muzzle?
Vibe is it possible to move the anti-node to the muzzle?
Vibe if the anti-node has a amplitude of 500X and we go to the right of it 10 degrees and to the left of it 10 degrees and see an arc through which it travels and plot that on a sheet of paper---Please do that.
Now if we add a weight so that the amplitude of the anti-node is now 1X not 500X and we go 10 degrees to the right and 10 degrees to the left and plot that arc on the same sheet of paper but this time we superimpose it over the first arc would it appear to be a steeper or flatter arc?
Could someone then say "the area under the curve" is "relatively flatter" or would this be wrong?
Waterboy
The terms "parallel" and "node" already have VERY distinct, precise, and specific definitions.
To use them to describe a condition that fits NONE of those definitions is simply ignorant. In fact the terms "parallel" and "node" are in fact mutually exclusive - one describes a property of a line, and the other is defined as a single point. Neither of which in any way refer to what happens at the end of a rifle barrel during firing. The "anti-node" is parallel, but only in the middle of the barrel, not past the node at the muzzle. The node, is not parallel to anything and is in fact vibrating in angular orientation.
What Bill has to be refering to is that the linear amplitude of those vibrations decrease to a point "approaching" being parallel to the line of the bore at the node. And at that point - if the bullet exits at one of the points (in time) of slowest change, then the muzzle "approaches" the "limit" of zero change in position ...it "approaches" being "stopped" (as Bill puts it).
Vibe
If you do a Google Search for the word Parallel Node you will get zero hits as it pertains to a rifles other than in a Precision Shooting Magazine article by
Bill Calfee.
Parallel Node is actually a slang term with its roots found in Borden,Indianna.It can be found in a very rare slang dictionary and I happen to own the last known copy.I could send it to you but as a single copy its value prevents me from putting it in the mail.
I think the problem here with nodes and anti-nodes Is I am the only guy with the slang dictionary and it keeps telling me to be BEYOND the muzzle.Now Vibe if we add a tube BEYOND the muzzle can you tell me were the node and anti-node are now?
Now for some questions if we use a tube that is beyond the muzzle.
Vibe is it possible to move the node to the muzzle?
Vibe is it possible to move the anti-node to the muzzle?
Vibe if the anti-node has a amplitude of 500X and we go to the right of it 10 degrees and to the left of it 10 degrees and see an arc through which it travels and plot that on a sheet of paper---Please do that.
Now if we add a weight so that the amplitude of the anti-node is now 1X not 500X and we go 10 degrees to the right and 10 degrees to the left and plot that arc on the same sheet of paper but this time we superimpose it over the first arc would it appear to be a steeper or flatter arc?
Could someone then say "the area under the curve" is "relatively flatter" or would this be wrong?
Waterboy
V
Varmint Al
Guest
Where is the Node?
ESTEN'S 22LR RIFLE.... Esten's barrel that is modeled is on a Myers Built 10.5# Rimfire Benchrest Rifle. It has a 24.75" Benchmark 2 Groove, Reverse Taper Barrel. The Reverse taper barrel has a short 1" long Breach Cylinder of 1.1" Dia. then radius down to .750" From there it tapers UP in dia. to .915" and has a .915 cylinder for the last 2" at the muzzle. No tuner was used in this simulation.
The movie clip shows the forced deformations of Esten's Reverse Taper barrel with a 1075 fps muzzle velocity and no tuner. The last frame of the animation coincides with the bullet exiting the muzzle. The muzzle is not stationary and points to different locations on a 50 yard target as shown by the movie clip. The deformations are amplified by 2000X.
One can discus mode shapes and nodes but they are not what affects where the muzzle is pointing while the bullet is traveling down the bore. There is no clear "node" in the barrel's deformations during this time. After the bullet clears the muzzle, then the barrel vibrates. Where is the barrel "stopped"?
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
ESTEN'S 22LR RIFLE.... Esten's barrel that is modeled is on a Myers Built 10.5# Rimfire Benchrest Rifle. It has a 24.75" Benchmark 2 Groove, Reverse Taper Barrel. The Reverse taper barrel has a short 1" long Breach Cylinder of 1.1" Dia. then radius down to .750" From there it tapers UP in dia. to .915" and has a .915 cylinder for the last 2" at the muzzle. No tuner was used in this simulation.
The movie clip shows the forced deformations of Esten's Reverse Taper barrel with a 1075 fps muzzle velocity and no tuner. The last frame of the animation coincides with the bullet exiting the muzzle. The muzzle is not stationary and points to different locations on a 50 yard target as shown by the movie clip. The deformations are amplified by 2000X.
One can discus mode shapes and nodes but they are not what affects where the muzzle is pointing while the bullet is traveling down the bore. There is no clear "node" in the barrel's deformations during this time. After the bullet clears the muzzle, then the barrel vibrates. Where is the barrel "stopped"?
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Definition of a Node in accordance with the American Heritage Dictionary.
1. A knob, knot, protuberance, or swelling.
2.
1. Botany The point on a stem where a leaf is attached or has been attached; a joint.
2. See knot 1.
3. Physics A point or region of virtually zero amplitude in a periodic system.
4. Mathematics The point at which a continuous curve crosses itself.
5. Computer Science A terminal in a computer network.
6. Astronomy
1. Either of two diametrically opposite points at which the orbit of a planet intersects the ecliptic.
2. Either of two points at which the orbit of a satellite intersects the orbital plane of a planet.
1. Being an equal distance apart everywhere: dancers in two parallel rows. See Usage Note at absolute.
2. Mathematics
1. Of, relating to, or designating two or more straight coplanar lines that do not intersect.
2. Of, relating to, or designating two or more planes that do not intersect.
3. Of, relating to, or designating a line and a plane that do not intersect.
4. Of, relating to, or designating curves or surfaces everywhere equidistant.
Definition of Parallel in Accordance with the American Heritage Dictionary
1. Having comparable parts, analogous aspects, or readily recognized similarities: the parallel lives of two contemporaries.
2. Having the same tendency or direction: parallel motives and aims.
4. Grammar Having identical or equivalent syntactic constructions in corresponding clauses or phrases.
5. Music
1. Moving in the same direction at a fixed interval: parallel motion; parallel fifths.
2. Having the same tonic. Used of scales and keys: C minor is the parallel minor scale of C major.
6. Electronics Denoting a circuit or part of a circuit connected in parallel.
7. Computer Science
1. Of or relating to the simultaneous transmission of all the bits of a byte over separate wires: a parallel port; a parallel interface.
2. Of or relating to the simultaneous performance of multiple operations: parallel processing.
Now, The terms "parallel" and "node" already have VERY distinct, precise, and specific definitions in what context. Call Pepsi a Coke long enough and it becomes acceptable. English is full of examples of words that have become accepted. You can say it does not exist in your world and your way of thinking, but you cannot extend that to real life.
V
Varmint Al
Guest
Lynn, check out Esten's 22LR here: http://www.varmintal.com/a22lr.htm
That particular calculation included the pressure in the bore and bolt face but no bullet. With an amplification of 2000x on the deformations, the bullet would be out of the picture after it had moved 0.012" at/or near the first time step of the calculation.
Here is a calculation of Esten's 6PPC with the bullet included and no amplification on the deformations. This calculation was for a smooth bore. The vertical plane of symmetry does not allow rifling.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
The only measurement that I saw was the "ringing". Of course, Bill says that's more to determine weight not placement. Whether he listens or feels or utters and old Cherokee prayer, I have no idea. What I saw him do was shoot, look at the vertical, adjust, shoot, adjust, and call it good, and it was. Now, I will say he has a lot of experience with this same type barrel and action and that may have helped. Of course, he is familiar with the ammo and knows what it will do. Does the Hopewell method, Calfee's method or all tuning methods give the same result? No idea. I haven't tried them all and I don't have a large enough population to give you a good statistical measure. I can say it worked on mine.
C
Carp
Guest
Lynn,
Look at post number 14 of this thread and compare it to post number 53. In fact, folks, all look at them. If you were a fisherman, I'd vote for the less weight. The weight only adds more barrel vibration. More predictable? I don't know. I would just go with less weight and bet on it.
Carp
Look at post number 14 of this thread and compare it to post number 53. In fact, folks, all look at them. If you were a fisherman, I'd vote for the less weight. The weight only adds more barrel vibration. More predictable? I don't know. I would just go with less weight and bet on it.
Carp