To Vibe

It's a good soapbox Keith,

Not only would the Ptolemaian model predict as well as the Copernican, but Aether theory predicts as well as Relativity theory. Nobody bothers, because the equations would be horrendous.

It all boils down to "simplicity." Some rather serious people have had a shot at a rigorous definition of "simplicity," and failed. It seems to be an intuitive notion. I like that.

Shooting doesn't really depend on science. It depends of repeatable predictability. If chanting mantra's over the barrel gave results, we'd take it. Let the archers figure out their own answers.

* * *

In passing, there are things Varmint Al's models predict that seem not to happen. Lynn's success with a downward sloping barrel. Mine with a tensioned barrel. Not enough data, or a bum theory/model?
 
Charles E said:
It's a good soapbox Keith,

Not only would the Ptolemaian model predict as well as the Copernican, but Aether theory predicts as well as Relativity theory. Nobody bothers, because the equations would be horrendous.

It all boils down to "simplicity." Some rather serious people have had a shot at a rigorous definition of "simplicity," and failed. It seems to be an intuitive notion. I like that.

Shooting doesn't really depend on science. It depends of repeatable predictability. If chanting mantra's over the barrel gave results, we'd take it. Let the archers figure out their own answers.

* * *

In passing, there are things Varmint Al's models predict that seem not to happen. Lynn's success with a downward sloping barrel. Mine with a tensioned barrel. Not enough data, or a bum theory/model?
Click to expand...

Aether seems to be coming back as dark matter, not that I know much about it.

Ah yes, Occam's razor, which Einstein paraphrased "models should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." A practical guiding principle, in spite of the obvious question of whether what is essentially a philosophy is valid as the criterion by which scientific truth is decided.

But back to BR rifles. I was not aware that Al had simulated a downward sloping barrel. I would think that the barrel needs to point at the target in any case, so that what is different is that the stock slopes upward? Ditto on the tensioned barrel. Please fill me in. As much as we have learned from Al's simulations, they are still approximations. According to Occam, the results will be close as long as the important factors are included. You hit on the other weakness, too. There are things we don't have enough measurements on to know whether the model is behaving as it should or not.

Cheers,
Keith
 
mks said:
I was not aware that Al had simulated a downward sloping barrel. I would think that the barrel needs to point at the target in any case, so that what is different is that the stock slopes upward? Ditto on the tensioned barrel. Please fill me in.
Click to expand...

I *think* they are gone. Best I remember, the one on the tensioned barrel -- really, "a barrel in a tube" was not in a rimfire/Calfee thread, & I don't know why I can't find it. I also don't think I described things well enough to Al -- it was a momentary request -- so I don't believe the FEA was close to accurate. They are a lot of work for him to run, and not many of us (me?) use the "stopped muzzle" offered by a tubed system, be it tension, compression, or simple clamping. I wasn't going to ask him to do more work.

I believe Lynn's was, as you can imagine, in a "Calfee" topic thread. (It was for a 1K rifle.) Maybe there is a reason for you to get interested in the aether after all?

I do believe Al makes reference to it on his own site, though I don't think there is a remaining FEA model there.
 
Right off the bat, I would attempt to experimentally include or eliminate the assumptions behind the FEA. There is at least one good RF gunsmith that uses a vibration measuring device to index barrels, and other forms of tuning based on kinda-sorta "stopping the muzzle".

Wonder if it would work with CFs? Heck, it was be nice to just compare and contrast RF and CF?

In an earlier life I had access to the right equipment, but no more.
 
Vibe said:
What he cannot do is cause 2 distinctly different harmonics to share a single frequency - which HAS to happen for a "parallel node" to exist. What he CAN do, and actually do it pretty well, is mount a tuner so that it self compensates for the velocity variation. He can claim otherwise all he wants. It just doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...

Now we're cooking!

By skipping back and forth between here and your RA Parallel Node thread I'm starting to put the jigsaw together. Those 2 distinct harmonics are those detailed in your following sentence
The problem with this is that to do this would require that the 1st and 3rd harmonic have exactly the same frequency - which has been steadfastly proven in every course of modern physics to be impossible.
Click to expand...
 
And it only took...what? Close to 8 years? LOL.
And you're still ahead of some.

How many people would think it completely daft to have 3/8" dovetails milled full length of the receiver on top bottom and both sides? Hmmmmm Dovetailing both sides of a tuner profile sporter barrel muzzle knot might not be a bad idea either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well the Great Pretender had a bit of head start on you and Marty as far as muddying the water. So I not surprised its taken as long as it has to get the sediment to settle sufficiently for the like of me to be able to see to the bottom of the lake.
Whilst I might never be first , I sure as hell will never be the last.

I long ago realised the truth in Dans recent post on RA "because what is being offered as education is simply marketing".
 
True. I didn't get involved in THAT discussion until well after a PS article was published - But I'd earned this nickname well before then - I got it on Shooters.com and Giz's 10/22 forum (Circa 1998-1999 I think). SO I've been arguing for the utilization of barrel harmonics for as long as anyone else it would seem.

And I have absolutely nothing to market.:cool:

But I think it's sort of neat that this website keeps tabs on who's read this thread. They're probably keeping tabs on your antics, but I'm still honored at the names in that list.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally I'm just glad that you and the others have kept up the discussion. At least that way the real science is kept to the fore rather than buried under the bulls crap rhetoric and hyperbole that spews forth from the other side.
That you and the rest of the truth speakers like Al and Geoff have nothing to market just makes your finding and science based conclusions all the better. IMO

I too like the who read this list. Doubt they are interested in my "antics". Interested in what gets discussed yes. As for those of the other camp, scared of what might be posted that they can't answer, undoubtedly. I've never come across a more edgy bunch than that lot.
 
Dave

I have just read that if the science doesn't fit with your half baked theories and pontifications you can claim that those who stand on the side of the science don't know what is happening in the real world as they have never built a gun, and therefore lack "hands on knowledge". As only the hands on folks understand the "realities" of the real world and what it takes to produce accuracy. ROTFL

As Slick Willy would say, they is sure stacking the cow patty's mighty high, high, high.......... C'mon man!
Phewie I can smell it from here.......and I'm 5K miles away.
 
OK...third time's charm...

You may discuss the pros and cons of Bill Calfee's "concepts" but please refrain from all else. Choose your words carefully.

And yes, I'm a bit overboard on this, if not completely...
 
Hambone said:
Dave

I have just read that if the science doesn't fit with your half baked theories and pontifications you can claim that those who stand on the side of the science don't know what is happening in the real world as they have never built a gun, and therefore lack "hands on knowledge". As only the hands on folks understand the "realities" of the real world and what it takes to produce accuracy. ROTFL

As Slick Willy would say, they is sure stacking the cow patty's mighty high, high, high.......... C'mon man!
Phewie I can smell it from here.......and I'm 5K miles away.
Click to expand...
Seeing as how I "built" about as much of the 22 Epperson Cricket rifles as some smiths do - and since I manufactured the bolt from scratch. Maybe that makes me more qualified. I don't happen to think so, but I didn't set those standards.
 
Wilbur said:
OK...third time's charm...

You may discuss the pros and cons of Bill Calfee's "concepts" but please refrain from all else. Choose your words carefully.

And yes, I'm a bit overboard on this, if not completely...
Click to expand...

Doin' the best I can, Boss. :D
 
Vibe said:
Seeing as how I "built" about as much of the 22 Epperson Cricket rifles as some smiths do - and since I manufactured the bolt from scratch. Maybe that makes me more qualified. I don't happen to think so, but I didn't set those standards.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Dr Geoff and a few others have the science and the hands on knowledge to surpass any standard set, real or imagined. :D
 
It's all good Tim. I got the whole post sent to me in the e-mail notification. I see your point. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
 
Dave

Just want to check I have this correct. Both you and Marty believe that this alluded to repeatability "of the ammo, stocks, bedding, and even bore condition " is in the same chance league as winning the big numbers lottery.
 
Hambone said:
Dave

Just want to check I have this correct. Both you and Marty believe that this alluded to repeatability "of the ammo, stocks, bedding, and even bore condition " is in the same chance league as winning the big numbers lottery.
Click to expand...
LOL. I can't speak for Marty, but it depends upon what you put into it. If you throw a bunch of musicians together and tell them to "play something" - even if each and everyone of them is the best in their instrument - you're not likely to get anything pleasant to listen to.

If however you focus each one of them on the same piece of music, it can be pretty good. If you also have a composer, capable of writing a piece that focuses on playing to the strength of each and minimizing there shortcomings - that can be fantastic.

We're a long way from anyone being able to mass produce a killer shooting system that won't need tweaking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are there other posts somewhere? Seems that Y'all are making sense but only to each other.
 
Wilbur said:
Are there other posts somewhere? Seems that Y'all are making sense but only to each other.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Hambone mentioned it in the first post of this thread.
Hambone said:
I'd like to get us back on track and recover a bit of what has gone on before.
Forgive me if I quote from your The Parallel Node explained.thread on RA

I'm starting to get the picture now thanks to you and Marty.

Its taken me a while to get here, but thanks to you and the rest of the guys I think I'm finally getting a handle on this Rim Fire accuracy malarkey.
Click to expand...

There's a 10 page (mostly civil) discussion here
http://www.rimfireaccuracy.com/Forums/showthread.php/3016-The-Parallel-Node-explained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top