Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Flatline Theories...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
A5 dude15 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Guested Pottymouth

Joined: 21 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A5 dude15 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 October 2005 at 10:16pm
yes...if thats true, but you have no proof, nor does anyone haf proof that your wrong. as soon as you find some evidence that backspin allow you to maintain a velocity longer or decrease the rate of decelaration, then i will be all on your side. evidence provided in all of these posts suggest that one of the reasons (the only reason so far) that backspin makes the ball go further is because of lift and it canceling out with gravity.  this does not mean that its maintaining the velocity, it is still decelarating.  this is why balls shot from the flatline at longer distances tend to bounce off of you more often, because the velocity has decreased too much, if your theory is correct then there should be a break everytime at long distances.
Back to Top
KillerOne View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 October 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 32
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KillerOne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 October 2005 at 10:10pm

the longer it can maintian a higher vel. then the harder it will hit- the farther it will go.

US MARINES: Breeding Killers since 1775.
Back to Top
A5 dude15 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Guested Pottymouth

Joined: 21 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A5 dude15 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 October 2005 at 10:06pm
and i still dont see why it matters if a ball hits harder or not, the ball usually breaks either way. im not saying that this is a pointless argument, im just sayin....ya
Back to Top
A5 dude15 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Guested Pottymouth

Joined: 21 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A5 dude15 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 October 2005 at 10:05pm
i still dont see what you're trying to say that just because it goes farther it hits harder...it doesnt mean in goes faster or nything, it still has the same velocity as other guns with ordinary barrels.  besides, the recomended velocity for the flatline is 270-280fps while guns with normal barrels can handle 300fps. so in most cases, normal barrels will hit harder.
Back to Top
A5 dude15 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Guested Pottymouth

Joined: 21 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote A5 dude15 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 October 2005 at 10:02pm
no, both of the balls have the same velocity and both are decelarating at the same rate, so at any given time the balls are traveling at the same velocity and therefor will hit the same. however, the flatline shoots further, so, at 250ft the flatline will hit harder than the normal barrel because the ball fromt he normal barrel will already be on the ground with no velocity and wont hit you at all.  because of the backspin, the ball travels further, and the only way that it would hit harder is if the backspin allows the ball to maintain a velocity for a longer period of time, or reduce the rate that it decelarates. and this hasnt been proven yet in this topic...i dont think.
Back to Top
KillerOne View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 October 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 32
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote KillerOne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 October 2005 at 9:39pm

KillerOne is back again I had to go work for awhile -

 at any rate I've been catching up on what’s been going on and I'm glad to see that HALO finally read the NASA page - I'm sure glad that it helped you out there buddy boy -

So far we got back spin = reduced drag, and lift.

  Thus farther shots right - So have we agreed that because its goes Farther it also Hits harder or are we still working on that one?

   This is taking along time to figure it out – but wouldn’t it stand to reason that if I have two barrels a Flatline like mine and a wonderful POS like UV HALO uses  – and if both of these barrels were shooting at the same PSI/FPS – wouldn’t it stand up in court that because of the Back Spin the Flatline would go Farther and Hit harder?

Understanding of course that Backspin = lift, reduced drag.

What say you ?   

 

US MARINES: Breeding Killers since 1775.
Back to Top
Lightningbolt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
PHAT and PLAT

Joined: 10 July 2002
Location: Dean's List
Status: Offline
Points: 4889
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lightningbolt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 October 2005 at 3:22pm

Last weekend I actually started to rig up an experiment to try and make proof of something but my sprayer wasn't working right and I couldn't produce enough water mist mixed with the air to make the air flow visible.

The most valuable thing is that backspin creates lift which we all know is true so...

Sent from a phone booth
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 October 2005 at 2:59pm

Not so simple, Jovian, if I am understanding your post correctly.

Most of us read "harder" to mean "retains velocity better".  And whether a rotating sphere retains velocity better or worse than a non-rotating sphere traveling through a fluid is not simple at all.  As discussed, there are a number of variables that impact this issue.

Now, you do raise a good point about perceived "hard-ness" based on whether the ball breaks or not, but that is really not what this discussion has been about.

Back to Top
LordJovian View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1882
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LordJovian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 October 2005 at 2:09pm

Wow. You guys need to go back and read this. It's pretty much the same statements repeated over and over again.

It is relatively easy to explain-

1. Distance- apparently everyone has accepted this, because it's true.

2. Ball hitting harder- I'm guessing this is the main arguement here? Hard to tell since every post is the same. Basically, this comment is too broad. What does "hitting harder" mean? Did the ball dry up and harden into a rock? Is it gaining speed? Does it break different?

Easy answer here- the ball is slowing down (decelerating) slower than a normal ball- so yes, it "feels" like it's hitting harder compared to a ball without backspin. BUT, at longer range here's the tricky part. Most players that have been playing a while know a ball that doesn't break hits harder and hurts more than one that does. Why? When it breaks, the paint and shell is shot off in different directions. The force of your skin pushing back has reached a point to push the ball into pieces. We'll give this a number- say it takes 10 "hit force" from your body to break a normal ball at normal speed (say 130 fps). If the ball slows down more than 130 fps, it would drop. However, the flatline keeps shots up in the air that shouldn't be up in the air. So, if a ball from the Flatline hits you at 95 fps, we'll say the ball won't break until 25 "hit force" from your body. Unfortunately, your body reaches only 20 "hit force" and doesn't break the ball, and sends it bouncing. 20 HF is twice as much as 10, so it hurt twice as much, thus making it seem it "hit harder."

Simple.

A-5
E-grip
Chipley Custom Carbon Graphite 16"
Evil Adapter(Spyder)
32 Deg New '03 XChamber
Remote Line
Gun Sling
Sniper f/x Stock
LPK
68/4500 HPA
R-5
CP Reg
JCS Duel Trigger
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2005 at 11:53pm

Any formula is based on theory, and theory is what we are trying to test.

The only way to conclusively determine the answer to our question is to run a couple of experiment.

I have method in mind that would involve a gun bench w/clamps, an A-5 with a Flatline and other smoothbore barrel, two chronographs, and a couple hundred paintballs.

The resulting statistical analysis won't be that complicated.  I can handle that, as can a number of folks here, I suspect.

All we need is some volunteers.

Back to Top
Bango View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Rugged Individualist

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2572
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bango Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2005 at 11:00pm
Where's KillerOne?
Back to Top
Monk View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 23 October 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Monk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2005 at 10:15pm
Does anyone have a highspeed camera?

Or does anyone have a force/pressure sensor?

I have a feeling that the math of it is going to be way over any of our heads.

So if we can experiment, its just as good as a formula.
/\ /\ \/ \/ < > < > B A START
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2005 at 6:02pm

Originally posted by Monk Monk wrote:


Is 300fps fast enough to cause a spinning ball to decrease drag?

I don't think we know enough about the aerodynamic qualities of a paintball to know that.  We would also have to know the rotational speed.

And, of course, we have the further problem that velocity is constantly reducing - so even if 300fps is fast enough for spin to help, 200 fps might not be (which would be the velocity after a short while).

Ugh - complicated.  The flight calculator that UV posted is impressive, but I'm not man enough to know how accurate it is.

We definitely need some science.  If somebody develops a data set, I would be happy to crunch the numbers.  (I could also help with experimental design, I just don't have the wherewithall to perform the actual study).

Come to think of it, if we did a proper study with a good write-up, I bet we could get it published someplace...  (Most likely WARPIG, but hey - published is published)

Back to Top
Monk View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 23 October 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Monk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2005 at 5:51pm
Ok, let me refrase that.

The spin on a paintball causes lift.

It will also cause less drag going fast, and more going slow.

So the debate is now, what speed is fast and when does that turn into slow.

Is 300fps fast enough to cause a spinning ball to decrease drag?


Edited by Monk
/\ /\ \/ \/ < > < > B A START
Back to Top
13entley View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 13 October 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 13entley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2005 at 5:06pm

im sorry but the flatline
OWNS

nuff said

a-5
flatline
Back to Top
daveandchig View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 15 October 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 46
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote daveandchig Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2005 at 4:50pm
what an incredible collection of paintball physics at play here!  I am impressed by the desire of you gentlemen to understand the key elements at play when paintballing.  Clark Kent, i went back and read the post you mentioned, and it all makes much more sense to me now.
you're no daisey.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2005 at 2:46pm

Spinning will create lift, yes.  As to reducing drag, it depends on the velocity of the ball, the drag coefficient of the paintball, and the speed of rotation.

Rotation could either reduce or increase drag, depending on those variables.

Back to Top
Monk View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 23 October 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Monk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2005 at 2:43pm
So are we in agreement yet, that a spinning paintball will create lift and reduce drag?
/\ /\ \/ \/ < > < > B A START
Back to Top
Bruce A. Frank View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
KRL Reincarnated?

Joined: 27 March 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3063
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bruce A. Frank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2005 at 5:00am
You guys are just going to force me to dig out my old chronograph. Haven't used it in 12 years and we moved once since then. I will continue to search.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2005 at 2:47am

I was referring to my own post half-way up this page, where I discuss back pressure at some length.  Essentially, rotation causes turbulence, which in some circumstances relieves the back pressure, which in turn reduced overall drag.

Bernoulli's principle is of limited utility when applied to a sphere - it's principal implication here is through it's nephew the Magnus effect, which changes the trajectory of a rotating sphere.

Incidentally, I just heard back from another friend, who works in the aerospace division of Honeywell.  He also did not have a specific answer.  The one I posted above is the best I have been able to uncover.  UV's link also provides lots of great information.



Edited by Clark Kent
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.