Vibe

[Lynn]

Vibe
Bill just doesn't realize that the Muzzle Devices he is so fond of, are indeed Positive Compensation devices. So he cannot "win" since he is in fact beating himself on a regular basis.
Bill understands more than you are giving him credit for.His statement was nobody shooting a tuner behind the muzzle would beat one of his guns with the tuner ahead of the crown.Both are positive compensation but one works much better than the other.
You posted you agreed that the node should be at the crown but you haven't said why yet-Please tell us why?
Its been 5 years now and nobody has asked Bill that question except myself that I know of.Maybe Slick Willy will tell us Toot Toot Toot Toot?
Tell us all Slick Willy does the tuner need to be in front of the muzzle or behind it? Vibe says in front as does King Bill but Positive Compensation says it shouldn't matter one way or another.They should both be equally good.
What does Slick Willy say and why? Toot Toot Toot Toot.
Lynn

 

[Vibe]

...the node should be at the crown but you haven't said why yet.....
Its been 5 years now and nobody has asked Bill that question except myself that I know of.

Again, This only shows that you don't read well. It's been asked several times. I have my own reasons for thinking this - but I've also stated them before.

But if Bill has answered that question to you before...Please, feel free to share.

You see it's never been so much about my being "right" so much as it was about my wanting Bill not to continue to be wrong.

 

[hulk]

In the tiny world of benchrest, Bill Calfee has a reputation. The slant of that reputation depends on your point of view. Regardless of your opinion, he was entertaining.

Whether you enjoy the King Bill without clothes version, certainly not an image that will help digestion, or the pull the certain on the great Oz version, most of us read the words with interest.

An uneducated, self-taught machinist working, by all accounts, in a dirt floor shop, attempting to challenge the world of science and all those who represent it. He has waged this David and Goliath struggle for years to keep his followers happy. Defeat was not an option.

Nevertheless, he has come to appreciate technology as his friend, since learning how to use a personal computer, YouTube and the avenues of desk top publishing.

While on that point, we have one follower who believes the value of one's expertise is measured by the number of books published. In our world today, where anyone can have a book published for pennies per page, this notion is as deluded as worshiping a comic book hero.

We had the "funny people" on Benchrest Central that disagreed with Bill. Now, we have the "banned" from Rimfire Accuracy.

Not to forget his sidekick, Wally, who kept Bill afloat with his own forum. As in the classics of Laurel and Hardy, they made an entertaining team. Entertainment brings engaging members, numerous posts, loads of silent majority views, paying advertisers and a forum for sale. Some forums are to share and exchange information. Some forums are infomercials for people and things. The lines were blurred in this case.

"I am not much about self congratualtion." This came after a dissertation citing statistics showing how he had made his forum "the number one accuracy site, rimfire or otherwise, in the world."These are from parting shots, pardon the pun, and one fan wrote that this might be a character test for Calfee detractors. Doesn't get any more entertaining than that.

Once my expectations were revisited, Bill was usually good for a laugh each and every day. I will miss him.

Happy Holidays to all.

 

[Lynn]

Hulk
Its not about Bill Calfee its about building winning rifles.In the one corner you have a guy building rifles that tore the rimfire community a new keester last year while in the other corner you have a group of shooters who get beat by them on a regular basis.
50% in that other corner have a personal issue with Bill because he wouldn't build them a gun or send them data on one they claim he built.One of them is whining about a gun when he doesn't even know if Bill has built it.
As to Bill working on a dirt floored shop that is not lore it is true.
As to Bill hating science that is also not true.Bill wants nothing but the best for everyone even his naysayers.
The big rub comes in because Bill doesn't use the correct terminology to describe what he is seeing.This makes his explanations somewhat more difficult to understand for many and it really irritates a few.
The guys it irritates would never make good Doctors.I say that because most people go to the doctor and explain to him/her what is wrong using the wroong terminology.Most would say it hurts here instead of giving a perfect diagnosis.
If you'll notice Vibe agrees with Bill on were the node needs to be he just doesn't understand the reasons why as nothing he has posted about it was correct.
The lightweight behind the muzzle tuners work great but they don't work as good as the tuners as set-up by Bill.As soon as Vibe gets a unlimited rifle and tests both methods he will post on here that the world has been saved and give us all the correct terminology.By the way Bill has said for about 5 years plus now that you could call it what you wanted.
Lynn

 

[Vibe]

If you'll notice Vibe agrees with Bill on were the node needs to be he just doesn't understand the reasons why as nothing he has posted about it was correct.

I think you're speaking about me here - but it'd be more accurate to say this about Bill. Nothing he's posted about how tuners work has been anywhere close to factual. But since you have brought it up. What exactly has been wrong with my many attempts at an explanation?
I've tried to accept the "it's just semantics" excuse. That was about 3 or 4 years ago. Bill was quite adamant that that was not the case and still insisted that the picture he had published in PS (where the frequency of a 1/4 wave and that of a 3/4 wave form were identical and stable) was indeed fact. At the very best, that's just wrong on the face of it. His "explanations" still require the suspension of some major rules that gravity works under.
To say otherwise is to misunderstand Bill as badly as you misrepresent the positive compensation group. I'm not sure if that would qualify one for "Idiot" status....But it would have to come close.

 

[Charles E]

I think you're speaking about me here - but it'd be more accurate to say this about Bill. Nothing he's posted about how tuners work has been anywhere close to factual. But since you have brought it up. What exactly has been wrong with my many attempts at an explanation?

Vibe, I think I can explain that one. What's wrong with your explanation is that it doesn't agree with Bill Calfee.

As somebody who was forced to have a major in college, I wound up with philosophy. Now this is academic philosophy, not the feel-good stuff everyone thinks philosophy is. When you look for the basis of truth, you find that empiricists use empirical evidence. Pretty simple. What's important is what counts against it. So, for example, peyote visions don't count.

The basis for religious truth is it's revealed.

These are complete explanatory systems, internally both complete and sound. They are complete enough that they can even explain the other, in their own terms.

Put simply, we get into problems when somebody is operating out of one system & mistakes what counts.

 

[Vibe]

Most systems of philosophical thought are pretty well grounded in the whole "Cause and effect" system of the way things work. Seeing as how I can understand several philosophies, ranging from Albert Camus to Ayn Rand ( I thought Nietzsche was just a bit weird though) I can understand what it is you are saying.
The phrase "A contradiction in terms" in the premise is what I think I'm up against. This is what Lynn thinks is "just" semantics.

But the whole "Much Ado About Nothing" turned out to be even longer lasting for Shakespeare. That play has been around for some 400 years or so.

 

[hulk]

Lynn,

Good to see you posting again. Being named as spokesperson for Bill must be an honor.

To your points. The shooters using Bill's rifles did have a good year in 2011. Not as well during 2009 or 2010, must be that global warming.

Never said Bill hated science. His learning how to post his own messages and pictures was refreshing.

His fighting facts, figures and FEAs with nothing but feeble theories, opinions and anecdotal observations was futile. What shows up on the paper is the ultimate test but if Bill had all of the answers, all of his rifles would shoot, all of the time, just ask Wally.

With regards to muzzle devices and other terminology, Bill did not invent the muzzle device despite his claims. He made his own version, improved the performance and popularized their use, a wonderful gift.

Bill painted himself into a corner with indexing and now cannot find a way out. Something happens when you index a barrel and what happens is very consistent. Whether it helps with rimfire accuracy will require more testing.

Parallel nodes and stopped muzzles are incorrect descriptions but I believe most of the academics had other problems than just mere words with Bill. Maybe, in the future, someone will bring both camps together and another round of progress will be made.

Lastly, of all people that would mention whining, you should not be the one. Yes, you were wronged and life is not fair. Might want to find some other term to use.

 

[Charles E]

Vibe, philosophy -- academic philosophy -- is about systems themselves, not the particular tenants. Soundness (whatever is provable is in true) and completeness (if it's true, it can be proved) are core properties of any useful system. But each system has its assumptions. In terms of freshman philosophy, empiricists assume what you see does in fact count as evidence. It isn't something you can prove.

To be neutral (in the states) both science and mystical buddhism can, in principle, be sound and complete. But to argue something in science from a buddhist's perspective, or vice versa, isn't useful. And in spite of everyone looking for about 4,000 years, there doesn't seem to be a super system to fall back on. Indeed, both empiricism and buddhism are so complete that each can, in principle, explain why someone becomes a scientist, or buddhist. Of course, the answers are different.

So to repeat: what's wrong with your tests, from Lynn & other's perspective, is your results don't agree with Calfee. You are just in a different systems, and there seems to be no way to resolve that.

In this kind of debate, the key question is, under what conditions is a particular (theory) proven incorrect on something? You actually made an attempt, but I don't think the Calfee crowd wants to count the test as valid. If someone can't clearly come up with those conditions, or you can't agree on the conditions, no point in arguing further.

 

[Vibe]

So to repeat: what's wrong with your tests, from Lynn & other's perspective, is your results don't agree with Calfee. You are just in a different systems, and there seems to be no way to resolve that.

In this kind of debate, the key question is, under what conditions is a particular (theory) proven incorrect on something? You actually made an attempt, but I don't think the Calfee crowd wants to count the test as valid. If someone can't clearly come up with those conditions, or you can't agree on the conditions, no point in arguing further.

I pretty much agree.
But then again that was one of the driving factors behind coming up with the "T-handle" tuner test. Providing anyone actually performs the testing - the outcome will be undeniably evident.

For those that missed what that was, it consisted of turning the tunable weight sideways - perpendicular to the barrel.
The node could be moved to the crown with the weight at a given distance from the muzzle - and without changing the weight or the distance - the results could be changed by either having the weight oriented vertically or horizontally. IF Bill is correct and there is no angular change at the "parallel node" there will be no change in performance. But if there is "Positive compensation" taking place due to an angular change about the node - there will be a rather large difference - due to the large change in the mass moment of inertia of the differing arrangements.

But since I suspect that the parallel node camp knows this - I don't really expect any of them to try it. Lynn "said" he was going to...but I haven't seen anything as a result. But I came up with that test a lot more recently than 5 years ago...it might not have sunk in yet.

 

[Slick Willy]

Lynn,

Good to see you posting again. Being named as spokesperson for Bill must be an honor.(Understatement of 2011)











Lastly, of all people that would mention whining, you should not be the one. Yes, you were wronged and life is not fair. Might want to find some other term to use.

Whine? Warterboy Whine? Whoa Hulk ! Whoa!

 

[Hambone]

Whine? Warterboy Whine? Whoa Hulk ! Whoa!

I had it marked down as more bleating rather than whining. Baabaabaa.

 

[Charles E]

Vibe:

Completely unrelated to Calfee, you might enjoy Godel's theorems. We spent an entire semester working through the proofs & considering the extensions. Strictly, these only apply to mathematical systems, not to "empiricism" or "mysticism." Most of it I've thankfully forgotten...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

 

[alinwa]

Vibe, philosophy -- academic philosophy -- is about systems themselves, not the particular tenants. Soundness (whatever is provable is in true) and completeness (if it's true, it can be proved) are core properties of any useful system. But each system has its assumptions. In terms of freshman philosophy, empiricists assume what you see does in fact count as evidence. It isn't something you can prove.

To be neutral (in the states) both science and mystical buddhism can, in principle, be sound and complete. But to argue something in science from a buddhist's perspective, or vice versa, isn't useful. And in spite of everyone looking for about 4,000 years, there doesn't seem to be a super system to fall back on. Indeed, both empiricism and buddhism are so complete that each can, in principle, explain why someone becomes a scientist, or buddhist. Of course, the answers are different.

So to repeat: what's wrong with your tests, from Lynn & other's perspective, is your results don't agree with Calfee. You are just in a different systems, and there seems to be no way to resolve that.

In this kind of debate, the key question is, under what conditions is a particular (theory) proven incorrect on something? You actually made an attempt, but I don't think the Calfee crowd wants to count the test as valid. If someone can't clearly come up with those conditions, or you can't agree on the conditions, no point in arguing further.

Charles, it's 'tenets' an important distinction to some of us.

Thank you for caring, I wouldn't have pointed it out elste

(how's that for an archaism? )

al

BTW could you explain this one?

Soundness (whatever is provable is in true)

My guess is "as in true"

or, "is in (fact) true" ???

Or just lose the "in" ???

 

[Charles E]

Thanks Al. It's "lose the 'in' "

While I do view propositions as my children, you're right -- I don't charge them rent.

But I see in spite of turgid academic prose and dreadful misspellings, the meaning came through. And I haven't been an academic in 40 years now. See what long hours of practice does to you?

Y'all get out there & burn some powder, now, y'hear.

It's Christmas, don't give anyone the finger.

Etc.

 

[alinwa]

Refreshing, first time in a long time to see etc instead of ect!

 

[Lynn]

Vibe
Your explanation of how a tuner works is not what I was talking about in your quote above.Your explanation for why the node needs to be at the crown is what I am talking about.Tell us why please.
As to Bill's explanations he is merely telling you what he is seeing with his own two eyes and then trying to explain it.You are telling us what can be seen with highspeed photography and expensive test equipment none of which Bill has.
As to your antenna type tuner I have switched it to a single antenna and increased its length.It is the busy time of the year for me right now so I only test on sundays.

Hulk
Not a spokesperson for Bill at all.I read what he writes and understand what he is trying to convey without all of the emotion of others over his explanations/terminology.

It wasn't to long ago that the then SuperModerators here said tuners didn't work and none would ever be used in centerfire benchrest.Of course all I ever posted at that time was to let the man post but that makes you a bad guy here.I actually thought it was the whole reason for this websites existence? Funny thing is now all those supermoderators who were anti-tuner are now self proclaimed physics experts who naturaly knew all of this all along and must have forgot to post about it back then.
I think the medical term for this condition is short term memory syndrome or egg on the face.I can't remember which.Out here we say your a BSer or you jumped on the band wagon when you say it doesn't work then claim your an expert 5-7 years later and knew it all along.
It would be nice if everyone could post without all of the bashing but jealousy is a huge factor in competitive shooting and Bill's rifles speak volumes about people and there petty jealousy.

On the barrel indexing I wrote to Eley and asked them myself as it was bashing 101 all over again.Eley wrote back to me twice and in a nutshell they said indexing showed no consistant improvement in accuracy that they could find.I posted there contact info but I am unaware if Vibe talked with them about it.
Lynn

 

[Varmint Al]

After Lynn went to all the work to make Vibe's test hardware, I thought it time to generate a model of the test hardware. I used Esten's 22LR with the reverse taper barrel and merged two wings of 416 stainless steel back of the muzzle. The dimensions of the wings (T-Bar) are 1/2" square by 3" long with a total weight of 6.5 oz. The picture shows the two positions (horizontal & vertical) calculated. With zero gravity and the muzzle pointing to zero, when gravity is applied, the bare muzzle projected to 50 yards sags 1.360" with the muzzle mass it sags 1.751". I subtracted the sag from each projection so it would be easier to compare the three conditions.

With the 1075 mv pressures, the amplitude of the projections are decreased with the muzzle mass. The excursions are more delayed and decreased with the muzzle mass in the vertical position. However, at the time of bullet exit, the projection of each is very similar. Also the calculations do not produce the high frequency oscillations that Koble measures with his test hardware. I need to do more in the future to determine the source of the high frequency.

Lynn's test hardware probably has a greater mass moment of inertia than the model, but it was easy to mesh square sections.

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

 

[Vibe]

I was hoping that the slope at bullet exit times would be a bit more prominently different, but I still find it significant that with the mass in the horizontal position the high freq disturbance at the lower transition area looks almost as if there had been no mass added at all, where as in the vertical orientation it had been completely removed. It also seems as if the mass in the horizontal position is providing a more linear portion of trace path at the range of exit times. But you could be right about the mass moment of inertia being a bit lower on the model than in the experimental testing. We'll see how the results compare.

Thank you Al for running the simulation.

Could some of the higher frequencies in Dr Kolbe's test be from the shorter barrel cantilever and more rigid mounting arrangement in his test rig.

 

[Boyd Allen]

In the same vein, a friend who is a long time CF benchrest competitor, and who does his own work, was given one of Dwight Scott's tuners, the style that has a threaded rod hanging below the barrel that is adjusted in and out to tune. (Dick Wright has written about that type of tuner in PS.) My friend mounted it on his rimfire bench rifle, and because it can be clamped in any position tried it with the rod located in other positions around the bore. He said that it didn't do too much till he mounted it at (I could be wrong on this. It has been a long time.) 4 o'clock. Perhaps this was because the barrel had some sort of internal curve that this helped compensate for. I have no idea. In any case, I give my friend points for thinking out of the box, and based on his experience would suggest testing with the bar in positions other than horizontal or vertical. You may not find any advantage but then again you will never know till you try.

I think that the real problem that has arisen about Calfee's work is entirely about his choice of words. If he had simply said, when I configure this way, I get this effect, there would have been nothing to argue about. Instead, the choice of terms has ended up being a major drama, which I believe has been good for his business, since it has had nothing to do with how his rifles (and pistols) shoot, and has gotten him a lot of ink that he would have not otherwise have had.