Bouncing off the "parallel Node", Calfee

[tillroot1]

You know, today is May 28th, 2008......within a few days, we will all completely understand the reasons for a flipper from a barrel that has set for a minute, or two, then fired.........

Johnstown, 1948....Benchrest born.......May 28th, 2008, after 60 years, the truth about this issue is about to see the light of day.....

Your friend, Bill Calfee[/QUOTE]

Bill Calfee, I still do not understand, and now you only offer to Dennis
by mail? remember this is a forum read by the public. Above you stated that we all would completely understand, follow thru with what you have started. Ron Tilley

 

[Rob Carnell]

Who cares why it happens, not me!

I just know it does, please continue with this esoteric BS, but you lost me on this thread.

Rob Carnell
Sydney, Australia

 

[Vibe]

Friends Vibe and alinwa:
I don't like you two guys..

That's unfortunate, also (as far as accuracy is concerned) irrelevant. I assure you the sentiment is not mutual...yet.

..do you think you have more knowledge than all the awesome, short range, centerfire folks?

I can't speak for alinwa, but as for my self...No. I do however think that the highly qualified Physics and Engineering professors that I studied under and schools that I attended just might fit that bill. But not me personally.

You guys don't know nothing!

On the contrary. I do recognize an over simplification when I see one. I'm intimately familiar with those, as well as the faulty results that come from them.

....you have been my biggest distractors,

Again. No. I think you are on the path that you think you are on. I just do not think that you will get there until you put as much accuracy into your thoughts and theory as you are trying to get out of your rifles. I've made the same mistakes I see you making many times before, I know the results.

But, you really do....but, I have a feeling you both understand the importance of this issue,

At least I have managed to successfully convey THAT concept.

and, both of you have put your ego's aside.

Perhaps it's time you did the same.

Vibe and alinwa, the world just changed..........

Not yet, but we seem to be getting closer.

 

[HuskerP7M8]

Vibe

Your technical knowledge, insightful posts, and your ability to disagree while still remaining polite continually amaze me….I applaud you.

Landy

 

[Øyvind]

Moisture ?

I have actually seen a russian prone shooter use a straw to get more moisture into his barrel before firing a round . After taking a break he took his straw out and blew into the barrel. Shot well too, he did......
Will I try it? Maybe.....

 

[Kathy]

Friend Dennis

Friend Dennis:

The parallel node has length......depending on the rate of oscillations of the barrel when fired.....but, the exact center of it never gets closer, or, further away, form the crown.......which means if we can move the exact center of the parallel node to the crown, with one of my muzzle devices, our muzzle will be stopped......then no further adjustments of the muzzle device are required.......

Friend Dennis, I am repeating, above, what I've already written because it's time to move forward.......I want this information fresh in folks minds...we've made the case for water in the bore....the old wives tale about a "cooked round" has been dispelled. ... ..forever...

I have a rifle that will wait for me........I have an idea that we may be able to set our muzzle devices, to stop our muzzles, by taking advantage of the water in the bore problem.........this is why it is so important that folks underestand what actually takes place in the bore of a rifle barrel after it's been fired...........

It's time for me to get to today's work.....we'll get started on this as soon as I can get a break...

Your friend, Bill Calfee

 

[Jetmugg]

"Because I say so" is not good enough.

Bill:
There is not a shred of evidence that there is any such thing as a "parallel node". This is term that you developed. It is not present in any engineering, physics, or vibration text that I am aware of. If anyone can point to the existence of this "parallel node", please do so.

A node is a point. It has no length or width.

We cannot move forward until the myth of the parallel node has been dispelled.

Nothing has been dispelled about a cooked round, and no proof of water in the bore contributing to inaccuracy has been established. If you think that either of these issues has been proven or established, please point to the evidence.

This board deserves and demands technical information beyond any self proclaimed expert (or self proclaimed dumb hilbilly) simply making unproven and/or unsupported statements. The level of scrutiny on this message board, and many others on the modern internet, will not allow BS statements to pass unchallenged.

The place to "Hold Court" and say anything you want without being challenged is on your own site. (This goes for anyone - if anyone wants to blog about the topic of their choice, go right ahead in your own space). However, on a public site such as this, you have to be prepared to be challenged with respect to any statements you might make.

Respectfully Submitted,

SteveM.

 

[Mike Marcelli]

Bill:
There is not a shred of evidence that there is any such thing as a "parallel node". This is term that you developed. It is not present in any engineering, physics, or vibration text that I am aware of. If anyone can point to the existence of this "parallel node", please do so.

A node is a point. It has no length or width.

We cannot move forward until the myth of the parallel node has been dispelled.

Nothing has been dispelled about a cooked round, and no proof of water in the bore contributing to inaccuracy has been established. If you think that either of these issues has been proven or established, please point to the evidence.

This board deserves and demands technical information beyond any self proclaimed expert (or self proclaimed dumb hilbilly) simply making unproven and/or unsupported statements. The level of scrutiny on this message board, and many others on the modern internet, will not allow BS statements to pass unchallenged.

The place to "Hold Court" and say anything you want without being challenged is on your own site. (This goes for anyone - if anyone wants to blog about the topic of their choice, go right ahead in your own space). However, on a public site such as this, you have to be prepared to be challenged with respect to any statements you might make.

Respectfully Submitted,

SteveM.

Steve:

If you were not one before, I believe you just elevated yourself to the realm of the "funny folk." Take care.

Mike

 

[Jetmugg]

Funny.

I was already funny in some people's view. I am open to being proven wrong, but I won't accept unsupported statements as "proof".

We cannot let false science and BS to be repeated continually on this site, no matter who is posting. The problem is that people will start to believe false statements if they are allowed to go unchallenged.

SteveM.

 

[Vibe]

SteveM(Jetmugg)
With all due respect. You are correct in the lack of reference to any such "parallel" node in Physics or Engineering. However Bill has conceded that it is the "Exact center" of this node which must be at the crown. An "exact center" is also a point. So in effect we are all in agreement - Even Bill.

As for water in the bore affecting accuracy??? Well the density of the air in front of the bullet has been proven to affect velocity. One such test was done, and published (though I cannot remember which magazine it was in). The testers used a 32 cal pistol round and something like 30' of barrel liner to do this crude test. The results were that the bullet could not exit the barrel at all if it were more than about 132" in length, and not all of that could be attributed to bullet/barrel drag. So filling the bore with water vapor, which is much less dense than regular Nitrogen/Oxygen air, it makes sense that moving less mass out of the way would lead to a difference in muzzle velocity - and changes in velocity are well known to cause changes in POI. How much of a change? In this sport ANY change is detectable and detrimental. So what the heck. Learn to deal with it or learn to eliminate it. Either plan works.

 

[Jetmugg]

No problem.

No problems Vibe. Yes, a node is a point. Bill's last post starts with this statement:

The parallel node has length

The problem is that there is no such thing as a parallel node. There is no definition for the term, yet Bill continues to repeat this type of statement as if it were an accepted fact. I can't and won't let this type of thing go unchallenged. I challenge Bill Calfee to show evidence of this "parallel node" by posting his evidence online.

As far as water in the bore affecting accuracy - yes I can accept that, but again we have this statement from Bill

we've made the case for water in the bore....the old wives tale about a "cooked round" has been dispelled. ... ..forever...

Again, I would ask him to show the evidence that the effects of a "cooked round" have been dispelled forever. Post the evidence online, forget about the SASE's. That's why we are here on the internet, and not in a round robin pen-pal club.

SteveM.

 

[Boyd Allen]

b

 

[Mike Marcelli]

SteveM(Jetmugg)
With all due respect. You are correct in the lack of reference to any such "parallel" node in Physics or Engineering. However Bill has conceded that it is the "Exact center" of this node which must be at the crown. An "exact center" is also a point. So in effect we are all in agreement - Even Bill.

As for water in the bore affecting accuracy??? Well the density of the air in front of the bullet has been proven to affect velocity. One such test was done, and published (though I cannot remember which magazine it was in). The testers used a 32 cal pistol round and something like 30' of barrel liner to do this crude test. The results were that the bullet could not exit the barrel at all if it were more than about 132" in length, and not all of that could be attributed to bullet/barrel drag. So filling the bore with water vapor, which is much less dense than regular Nitrogen/Oxygen air, it makes sense that moving less mass out of the way would lead to a difference in muzzle velocity - and changes in velocity are well known to cause changes in POI. How much of a change? In this sport ANY change is detectable and detrimental. So what the heck. Learn to deal with it or learn to eliminate it. Either plan works.

Vibe:

You too are falling into the trap. SteveM is right, there is no evidence, only conjecture. Your theory respecting water vapor in the barrel, while creative, is scientifically unfounded. Why would nature allow such a gradient to exist in an open system? Why wouldn't the hot moist air in the barrel transfer to the cool drier air outside? If a gradient does exist, shouldn't that gradient decrease over time? If the gradient does exist, and can be attributed to the presence of water vapor, shouldn't you see a slower shot following equilibration (i.e., after the round sits in the chamber) than if the rounds are fired in rapid succession?

If I told you that the composition of the atmosphere changes during the night because the color of the sky changes from blue to black, could you me wrong without applying any scientific principals? That's where we are in this thread. Claims without proof.

I fear that this post is just another waste of bandwidth. I spent a significant part of my life learning how and why chemical reactions work or don't work. I cannot convey that knowledge in a post or two on the internet. I tried to do that by brining up chemical adsorption, but fear I only clouded the issues more. In this post, what I hope I've conveyed is that one should be skeptical of claims that appear to defy established scientific principals -especially when the one espousing those beliefs refuses to offer any proof.

 

[Vibe]

Vibe:

You too are falling into the trap. SteveM is right, there is no evidence, only conjecture. Your theory respecting water vapor in the barrel, while creative, is scientifically unfounded. Why would nature allow such a gradient to exist in an open system? Why wouldn't the hot moist air in the barrel transfer to the cool drier air outside? If a gradient does exist, shouldn't that gradient decrease over time?

It's all a question of partial pressures. Some, in fact most of the products of combustion are expelled in muzzle blast. What is left cannot be normal air, at least not immediately. The moist air inside will not transfer outside because there is not as much area at the bores muzzle as there is on the walls, and condensing water vapor would create a partial vacuum that will draw the outside air in, further preventing the escape of these gasses. Nature will do all she can to correct the "gradient".

If the gradient does exist, and can be attributed to the presence of water vapor, shouldn't you see a slower shot following equilibration (i.e., after the round sits in the chamber) than if the rounds are fired in rapid succession?

Not necessarily. True it's just a theory, but the condensate in the bore would most likely not act as a lubricant, but instead cause a rise in pressure which could very well explain the MV increase.

If I told you that the composition of the atmosphere changes during the night because the color of the sky changes from blue to black, could you me wrong without applying any scientific principals? That's where we are in this thread. Claims without proof.

Right now I can live with plausibility.

I tried to do that by brining up chemical adsorption, but fear I only clouded the issues more. In this post, what I hope I've conveyed is that one should be skeptical of claims that appear to defy established scientific principals -especially when the one espousing those beliefs refuses to offer any proof.

I appreciate your position. But then I do know the difference between adsorption and absorption. At this point the water vapor theory is quite scientifically plausible in my opinion.

 

[rudedog]

water in bore

I can see where water would increase pressure, because water does not compress, and would seal the bore around the bullet increasing pressure.
Rudy Manuel

 

[Mike Marcelli]

Vibe:

Ok, I believe that you are correct in your assumption that most of the products of combustion are expelled during the shot. So, how much water vapor is left? How much CO, CO2, N20, NO, NO2? (This is a loaded, no pun intended, question because the these amounts will depend upon the degree of nitration of the particular nitrocellulose at issue and most likely comprise trade secrets that could not be determined without controlled distruction in a pressure vessel).

Since CO2, N2O, NO and NO2 all have higher specific gravities than air and, from what I've been able to gleen from the net, likely comprise a greater percentage of the products of combustion of nitro cellulose than water wouldn't their presence tend to disprove the water vapor theory?

What is the partial pressure gradient between the gaseous vapor left in the barrel and that on the outside? How is this gradient maintained when you open the bolt and extract the case? Is it a double gradient?

Again, we're talking MV changes of up to 120 fps, so how much of a gradient are we talking about? Does the change in density of the volume of air displaced by the next shot down the tube account for this great a change in MV?

Assuming, as you have that water condenses in the bore, why would THIS condensate in the bore act any differently from any other substance in the bore? In other words, why wouldn't it act as a lubricant?

If the water vapor theory is the explanation to phenomenon of why the MV of a round left to sit in the chamber increases, why is it a superior theory to the heat transfer theory? How does this theory account for the practice, that some of us dumb schlubs use, of simply removing a round that has "cooked" and replacing it with a "cool" round to avoid fliers? Does working the bolt twice, instead of just once, eliminate the gradient?

Finally, how does the water vapor theory account for the fact that if you let ammo sit out in the sun before firing, it records a higher MV than cool ammo?

 

[Jetmugg]

Good stuff.

Vibe and Mike:
Good points from both of your recent posts. That kind of discussion is the reason that statements like this

we've made the case for water in the bore....the old wives tale about a "cooked round" has been dispelled. ... ..forever...

don't stand up to scrutiny.

Keep up the good work. Some of these discussions won't appeal to everyone, but the interested parties deserve good information.

SteveM.

 

[Rich-Allen]

Vibe and Mike:
Good points from both of your recent posts. That kind of discussion is the reason that statements like this



don't stand up to scrutiny.

Keep up the good work. Some of these discussions won't appeal to everyone, but the interested parties deserve good information.

SteveM.

Hmmmm..... That very thinking could be applied to the people following Calfee's post.

Just thought I would point that out.

Rich

 

[Jetmugg]

Rich:

Except for the part about good information.

 

[Varmint Al]

Air mass in the Bore of a 22" barrel.

Worrying about the bullet pushing dry or humid air out of the bore doesn't seem worthwhile. A quick calculation shows that the 20 inches of 6mm bore in front of the bullet contains a mass of dry air equal to 0.281 grains. If the air is at 100% humidity, then the mass is 5% less or 0.267 grains. That is a difference of 0.014 grains of mass in front of the bullet.

Worrying about pushing that small amount of air mass difference out the bore, wet or dry, is nonsense.

From a semi-bystander it appears to me that this forum is a place for Bill to bounce his crackpot ideas off of people and to keep people from concentrating on the things that really effect accuracy.

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al