Varmint Al
New member
Steve, that is a good idea. It would help to minimize horizontal dispersion.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
My problem with the "parallel node"
- Thread starter Vibe
- Start date
- Status
Steve, that is a good idea. It would help to minimize horizontal dispersion.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
Well there are always the less elegant solutions that might tell us something "on the cheap" - I wonder if I could put a few .020" dia holes in the barrel and sink some phonograph needles in there. LOL.
To Varmint Al...
That quote you referenced to me was made by Lynn, not me. I'm familiar with what you have modeled.
As to that barrel shape that is flattened off on the top and bottom, why would it offer any real advantages? The horizontal dispersion, everyone seems to agree are of no real consequence. The only reason to put flats at any position is to reduce weight. It seems to me it might be better to put the flats on the horizontal so you keep the barrel relatively stiff in the vertical direction. If you were after a decrease in stiffness (as some feel is desirable) then just make the barrel diameter smaller.
What I've said above is based on everyone's attempt to get better accuracy by affecting only the vertical dispersion. I'm not sure this is, in fact, the best approach.
That quote you referenced to me was made by Lynn, not me. I'm familiar with what you have modeled.
As to that barrel shape that is flattened off on the top and bottom, why would it offer any real advantages? The horizontal dispersion, everyone seems to agree are of no real consequence. The only reason to put flats at any position is to reduce weight. It seems to me it might be better to put the flats on the horizontal so you keep the barrel relatively stiff in the vertical direction. If you were after a decrease in stiffness (as some feel is desirable) then just make the barrel diameter smaller.
What I've said above is based on everyone's attempt to get better accuracy by affecting only the vertical dispersion. I'm not sure this is, in fact, the best approach.
To Lynn...
You said....
Pacecil
As you already know Bill is using a machine rest and dial indicators and his fixtures/test procedures are in his book.This is nothing new to you so I guess you just felt like posting today?
If you look on Varmint Al's website like you suggest I do you should my riflle as Varmint Al modeled it as well.According to the modeling my tuner was too heavy and the fast and slow shots should be showing more vertical than they are.That rifle set or re-set 4 national records.
As to not knowing the requirements of running FEA explaining a lot you are entitled to your opinion.I don't see you using it or showing us your modeling with it so I am only left to assume you re in the same boat.
I have to admit I didn't know how Bill was "seeing" his barrel vibrations. I'll plead guilty of misjudging him and assume he has worked out the problems of making dynamic measurements with a dial indicator.
It looks like, then, that V. A.'s modeling or FEA analysis is just not very good at predicting how your rifle might perform.
I used FEA for many years back when I was working. I'm now retired but still have an old FEA program on my computer. It is no where near the power of what V. A. is using. I did show something using FEA in a old thread on this forum, but I can't remember what it was.
I can see where it's tough to keep defending Calfee as you are doing. I hope he appreciates it. He doesn't seem to be offering anything himself in his own defense but them maybe he has been banned from this forum - or maybe he couldn't care less what is posted about him. In any case it makes for some interesting threads when someone does start talking about his ideas.
You said....
Pacecil
As you already know Bill is using a machine rest and dial indicators and his fixtures/test procedures are in his book.This is nothing new to you so I guess you just felt like posting today?
If you look on Varmint Al's website like you suggest I do you should my riflle as Varmint Al modeled it as well.According to the modeling my tuner was too heavy and the fast and slow shots should be showing more vertical than they are.That rifle set or re-set 4 national records.
As to not knowing the requirements of running FEA explaining a lot you are entitled to your opinion.I don't see you using it or showing us your modeling with it so I am only left to assume you re in the same boat.
I have to admit I didn't know how Bill was "seeing" his barrel vibrations. I'll plead guilty of misjudging him and assume he has worked out the problems of making dynamic measurements with a dial indicator.
It looks like, then, that V. A.'s modeling or FEA analysis is just not very good at predicting how your rifle might perform.
I used FEA for many years back when I was working. I'm now retired but still have an old FEA program on my computer. It is no where near the power of what V. A. is using. I did show something using FEA in a old thread on this forum, but I can't remember what it was.
I can see where it's tough to keep defending Calfee as you are doing. I hope he appreciates it. He doesn't seem to be offering anything himself in his own defense but them maybe he has been banned from this forum - or maybe he couldn't care less what is posted about him. In any case it makes for some interesting threads when someone does start talking about his ideas.
Varmint Al
New member
pacecil: I fixed the quote source. Sorry about the error.
Horizontal despersion could occur if the CG of the rifle is not directly below bore axis. The loading port and bolt handle can cause the CG to be shifted away from the vertical plane of symmetry that passes through the bore axis.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Pete Wass
Well-known member
If you had been at the Barn this weekend you would have realized, from all the Calfee rifles there, He doesn't need to either defend himself or have anyone else do it for him. All that needs to be done to prove him wrong is to deliver a formula that will make better shooting rifles than he or others can make. It's truly that simple.
Last edited:
Pete
I am not here defending Bill Calfee.I like to read what the best of the best have to say and make up my own mind as to what works and what doesn't.
I will however chastise someone who thinks its okay to try and run him off when there is no need for that kind of thing given his credentials.
I also like Vibes posts and those by Varmint Al and wish they could all get together and let Bill explain to them what he thinks and sees without interruption then they explain to him what the correct terminology is and explain its use.
I realise this will never happen.
Waterboy
I am not here defending Bill Calfee.I like to read what the best of the best have to say and make up my own mind as to what works and what doesn't.
I will however chastise someone who thinks its okay to try and run him off when there is no need for that kind of thing given his credentials.
I also like Vibes posts and those by Varmint Al and wish they could all get together and let Bill explain to them what he thinks and sees without interruption then they explain to him what the correct terminology is and explain its use.
I realise this will never happen.
Waterboy
pacecil: I fixed the quote source. Sorry about the error.
Horizontal despersion could occur if the CG of the rifle is not directly below bore axis. The loading port and bolt handle can cause the CG to be shifted away from the vertical plane of symmetry that passes through the bore axis.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
A couple of other sources of lateral CG and stiffness shifting are the gas port (which is typically drilled on only one side), the bolt cut in the stock, scope turrets and misalignment of the barreled action in the stock. If there is any side-to-side asymmetry, it will excite vibration in the horizontal plane. High stiffness in the horizontal direction will decrease the amplitude of vibration. Infinite stiffness would be ideal. On the other hand, we want some vertical barrel deflection to offset differences in muzzle velocity. Therefore, the "wide body" barrel contour may provide what we want - high stiffness horizontally and less stiffness vertically.
Cheers,
Keith
jGEE
Joe Golden
pacecil: I fixed the quote source. Sorry about the error.
Horizontal despersion could occur if the CG of the rifle is not directly below bore axis. The loading port and bolt handle can cause the CG to be shifted away from the vertical plane of symmetry that passes through the bore axis.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Wow that's something i had never thought about...... if i understand you correctly that would be a strike against my left port- right bolt turbo......... very interesting thought -thanks, joe
Vibe
22 Epperson Cricket
Maybe, maybe not. But we'll see. Bill has apparently launched into an explanation of sorts (Started on post #8), and we'll see if he actually carries it through to the end - without getting distracted by cabbage and corned beef. Either way I intend to stay out of it and not BE that distraction until he's finished.
http://www.rimfireaccuracy.com/Forums/showthread.php/733-An-old-Kentucky-Hillbilly-stops-the-muzzle
I think he's dug an awfully deep hole to climb out of, so I'm interested to see how he does it.
Last edited:
M
martyh
Guest
VIBE, you were right about getting distracted, wrong about the cabbage and corned beef. lol
M
martyh
Guest
if bill was on the right track and understood barrel vibration he would be tuning as the barrel rises not falling, and thats just the way it is.
This is one of the most fascinating threads I have read on this forum, ever. I say that for two reaons.
First, it is very diverse technically, and has helped me visualize a number of things I have simply looked at as voodoo over the years.
Second, it is also like sitting in an airport or similar location to "people watch", as the various contributions, as well as reactions to them, disclose a lot about the participants.
I have worked for over 30 years in a field populated by engineers and "hands on" folks. I have made my living for the most part as an engineer who can speak english. I take the technical stuff and translate it for lay people like regulators or legislators. I am a professional witness of sorts.
What I "think" I see going on is a very classic example of design versus build. The engineers and designers here are a little different in that most of them also get hands on. But still, it is essentially a social conflict between the college mind and the builder mind.
The engineer/designer can explain why or predict what will happen, and illustrate data to support these assertions.
The builder guy has experience in putting into real world terms what the designer comes up with. The builder guy does this without the deep technical expertise, but WITH an incredible sense of what looks and feels right. Mechanical genious cannot be taught, it just exists because of a certain set of skills that some seem to be born with.
What occasionally happens over time is that builder guy becomes expert in what he does to a point where he is regarded to be as knowledgable as the designer/engineer. This occurs because of physical results rather than the more academic process of publication.
Builder guy wants to teach what he knows. He develops his own jargon that is used to explain what he does by touch and perception.
The engineer/designer can look at the end result and disect it technically and more accurately than builder guy. And this causes the engineer/designer to take issue with the inaccuracy of builder guy's jargon. To add frustration to this, many engineers cannot duplicate builder guys product, even though they know how and why it works better than builder guy does.
This conflict has no end and no resolution until and unless there comes to pass a masterful builder guy, best in all the land, who is also an engineer/designer. I fear that the existance of such an individual would be like matter and anti-matter and some cataclismic event would occur.
I will now go back to sitting on the fence, as that is where the view is best.
regards,
Dan
(post little and listen a lot)
First, it is very diverse technically, and has helped me visualize a number of things I have simply looked at as voodoo over the years.
Second, it is also like sitting in an airport or similar location to "people watch", as the various contributions, as well as reactions to them, disclose a lot about the participants.
I have worked for over 30 years in a field populated by engineers and "hands on" folks. I have made my living for the most part as an engineer who can speak english. I take the technical stuff and translate it for lay people like regulators or legislators. I am a professional witness of sorts.
What I "think" I see going on is a very classic example of design versus build. The engineers and designers here are a little different in that most of them also get hands on. But still, it is essentially a social conflict between the college mind and the builder mind.
The engineer/designer can explain why or predict what will happen, and illustrate data to support these assertions.
The builder guy has experience in putting into real world terms what the designer comes up with. The builder guy does this without the deep technical expertise, but WITH an incredible sense of what looks and feels right. Mechanical genious cannot be taught, it just exists because of a certain set of skills that some seem to be born with.
What occasionally happens over time is that builder guy becomes expert in what he does to a point where he is regarded to be as knowledgable as the designer/engineer. This occurs because of physical results rather than the more academic process of publication.
Builder guy wants to teach what he knows. He develops his own jargon that is used to explain what he does by touch and perception.
The engineer/designer can look at the end result and disect it technically and more accurately than builder guy. And this causes the engineer/designer to take issue with the inaccuracy of builder guy's jargon. To add frustration to this, many engineers cannot duplicate builder guys product, even though they know how and why it works better than builder guy does.
This conflict has no end and no resolution until and unless there comes to pass a masterful builder guy, best in all the land, who is also an engineer/designer. I fear that the existance of such an individual would be like matter and anti-matter and some cataclismic event would occur.
I will now go back to sitting on the fence, as that is where the view is best.
regards,
Dan
(post little and listen a lot)
Gene Beggs
Active member
Melvin Calliham
New member
And some times the builder wants scientists to change the Laws of Physics
http://www.rimfireaccuracy.com/Forums/showthread.php/744-I-need-some-help-please.
M
martyh
Guest
well, if you can walk on water........ you should be able also to change the law on physics. lol
What I gather from the "I hate the parallel node (do you have t-shirts)" crowd is that everything about physics is understood and written in stone. So, really there's no more need for physicists especially researchers. We just need keeper of the information because it is all understood. Each of you, in turn, seems to indicate that you understand all there is to know about physics (maybe you should be the keepers). Probably most of everything I've ever seen can be understood and explained by the laws of physics. I just don't think your constitution is quite complete.
jGEE
Joe Golden
The world's population is 6.7 billion people -that's a lot of people. Eliminate any one person out of those numbers and rimfire would be exactly where it is today -maybe even father along. It is nice to give credit where credit is due but to dismiss 6.7 billion people is ludicrous. joe
- Status