New size paintballs?

[Matski]

A. The pictures are of poor quality

B. Deformation does not have to be visible to the naked eye to have occurred/be occurring, right?

Surely the only way to really test this would be to kidnap some boffins from NASA and use lasers to accurately map the surface of the ball from the moment it starts moving. You can't pull out some grainy picture and expect it to prove anything...

 

[Robbo]

Chris, these pics are of a paintball AFTER it has left the barrel aren't they?

I saw the pics of the paintball still in the barrel (a glass barrel was used for this part of experiments) and experiencing deformation, by the time the ball leaves the barrel there will be significantly less deformation because of the pressure drop and normalisation.

All my points were based upon observations of a paintball till INSIDE the barrel and not OUTSIDE; these pics prove absolutely NOTHING other than your desperation to not be wrong.

 

[Chicago]

No, Pete, those are pics of the paintball in a transparent barrel. You can even see the bolt on the left. But glad you have such a good recollection of the photos that you recognize them when you see them.

Matski: Yes, it has to be visible to the naked eye. Otherwise it is far, far less than the "deformation" from the paintball just sitting there on the table. Deformation less than the deformation of the paintball just sitting there counts as "no" deformation, the same way tap water is water even though it isn't 100% pure water. I am not using "no" in the context of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER, I am using "no" as in "nowhere near anything enough to make a difference at all", which is the original context of "the paintball deforms to cause spin". It doesn't. It doesn't deform enough to have any effect, or even be observed.

Let me put it another way. I'm staring at my blackberry sitting on my desk. Now, I think were I to say "My blackberry does not experience deformation from sitting on my desk" that we'd all agree that was a reasonable an accurate statement. However, TECHNICALLY, there *IS* force between the desk and the blackberry, and there *IS* some deformation of both the desk and the blackberry as a result of that force. Of course, it is so tiny as to be essentially none. It's the same deal here. Is there absolutely positively no deformation? I'm sure there is some incredible miniscule amount. But nothing to disqualify the word no.

Just like I would say there is NO water on my desk, even though I'm sure there are a few stray H2O molecules.

Buddha:

I'm talking about the moment the paintball is fired, when force is first applied to its ass, not when it's well on its way, but that split second when it first starts speeding up. Do you honestly think that no deformation at all takes place?

Are you talking about force from the bolt pushing the ball forward, or force from the air pushing the ball forward? And you agree that after the moment the paintball is fired, there is no longer any deformation?

 

[Robbo]

Chris, all it does is confirm what terrible pics they must be if I cant see the frikkin barrel....and even if they are in the barrel, if your opinion is derived from those pics, then you truly are a fool because as has been already noted, those pics are useless in trying to determine anything concrete.

If you cannot come to a conclusion on pictorial evidence Chris, then try to frame it in theory.
We both know there is a force applied to the back of the paintball, we both know that force is at its maximum after T zero and decreases thereafter.

We both know the paintball is made up of a material that deforms relatively easily.

We both know that paintball will experience a deforming force on the back side of the paintball, and that force will be evenly spread across that back face.

Once we acknowledge the force, the location of that force and the material property, we can then conclude there will be some deformation; all that needs to be worked out is the degree of deformation and whether that deformation will significantly affect the trajectory.

Your position is one of denial and not one of investigating further to assess deformation degree.... anybody looking in from outside of this debate would conclude if any weight was to be given to either party, then your position of absolute denial is going to attract less scientific sympathy.

 

[Chicago]

Chris, all it does is confirm what terrible pics they must be if I cant see the frikkin barrel....

The barrel is TRANSPARENT! THE WHOLE POINT IS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE IT!

and even if they are in the barrel, if your opinion is derived from those pics, then you truly are a fool because as has been already noted, those pics are useless in trying to determine anything concrete.

Well, I have pics, you have no pics. Also make sure you download the tiff version and enlarge it so you're seeing the paintball in full resolution.

Actually, not only do I have pics, I have *THE* pics which you previously claimed proved deformation. I think they show no deformation, but they definitely do not show deformation. So i the pics you claimed showed deformation do not, then what is your basis for claiming deformation in the first place?

If you cannot come to a conclusion on pictorial evidence Chris, then try to frame it in theory.

Ok... since you have no pictorial evidence, theory is what we got... although you used to remember pictorial evidence, which apparently didn't exist after all, after you claimed quite forcefully that I was foolish for not simply believing your recollection....

We both know there is a force applied to the back of the paintball, we both know that force is at its maximum after T zero and decreases thereafter.

Right...

We both know the paintball is made up of a material that deforms relatively easily.

Sure, if you apply uneven force. If you apply even force, there is no deformation.

We both know that paintball will experience a deforming force on the back side of the paintball, and that force will be evenly spread across that back face.

A force, but not a deforming one.

Once we acknowledge the force, the location of that force and the material property, we can then conclude there will be some deformation;

No, you can't.

Can you even say in what manner the paintball will deform? If it starts as a sphere, what shape does it supposedly end up in wen it's being deformed?

 

[Cook$]

So all this means .50cal will be better how?

 

[Codiak]

im looking at the TIF and see the top one shows balls leaving the end of an AGD crown tipped barrel, the lower images (with the numbers and pen on it) is meant to to show what exactly?

 

[Robbo]

The barrel is TRANSPARENT! THE WHOLE POINT IS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE IT!

I'll resist the temptation to capitalize and answer accordingly, the fact you cannot see the barrel has nothing to do with the barrels transparency you numb-skull, good god Chris, a drinking glass is transparent, does that fcukin disappear every time you take a picture of it?
No it fackin don't and so don't insult my intelligence by suggesting as much again... Chris, Don't insult me again by taking a similar line to this and then capitalizing it just to save your scrawny ass in some debate you are involved in.
The reason you do not see the barrel is because the pics are sooo frikkin bad in terms of quality not because they are made of glass.

Well, I have pics, you have no pics. Also make sure you download the tiff version and enlarge it so you're seeing the paintball in full resolution.

Actually, not only do I have pics, I have *THE* pics which you previously claimed proved deformation. I think they show no deformation, but they definitely do not show deformation. So i the pics you claimed showed deformation do not, then what is your basis for claiming deformation in the first place?

My claim is seeing pics that showed deformation, I have zero idea how anybody could be soo damned arrogant to claim these are the ONLY pics.
Only someone as arrogant as you and brockdorff could do that but I'll run with this for a minute, Chris, read this next bit carefully, You were NOT there in Chicago when I was with Tom in the labs, I saw pictures of deformation on paintballs fired from a glass barrel, you obviously do NOT possess copies of those pics and to suggest you are in possession of the only pics of that experiment, or of a similar experiment, is unbelievably arrogant and also qiute wrong.
Now wind your neck in a bit and don't go jumping up and down like some deranged child believing they have finally got something over on an older brother, you haven't got a damned thing, all you have got is your arrogance to dance with.

Ok... since you have no pictorial evidence, theory is what we got... although you used to remember pictorial evidence, which apparently didn't exist after all, after you claimed quite forcefully that I was foolish for not simply believing your recollection....

'appranelty did not exist after all'?
And so, you descend to calling me a liar?
Tread carefully Chris coz a liar I am not, try looking at the fact you are an arrogant fool as a more likely proposition than I am lying ... unfortunately your arrogance isn't gonna allow you to select the correct option here.

Right...

Sure, if you apply uneven force. If you apply even force, there is no deformation.

And the fact that the force on the back side as against the front doesn't suggest there is a difference in forces on the paintball???

Bejeeepers, you can't be that stupid, can you?
No, you ain't, and so why do you persist?
Lemme give you a clue, it begins with 'a' and ends with 'e' and has 'rroganc' in between

A force, but not a deforming one.

Yawn !!!! Read above...this is becoming tiresome ......

No, you can't.

Oh my, if you have a force upon any object that is not 100% rigid then you will get a subsequent deformation ESPECIALLY with an object such as a paintball full of gel.

The paintball is NOT 100% rigid !
A force is applied to the backside !

There HAS to be deformation if that ball possesses inertia and a paintball sitting in a barrel will have inertia and experience friction.

The ONLY way you can be correct is if the paintball is either infinitely rigid OR the paintball has ZERO inertia; it's not either of these and therefore will experience deformation and the ONLY question left to answer is the degree of deformation ...game, set and match !!!!

I'm done here, it's not so much your arrogance that irks me but your ignorance of the laws of physics .... try acquainting yourself with some of them before you tangle with me again ... it becomes a tad embarrassing for everybody concerned ...

 

[Buddha 3]

So all this means .50cal will be better how?

Smaller balls to fuss over, so hopefully less debate.

 

[Buddha 3]

Buddha:



Are you talking about force from the bolt pushing the ball forward, or force from the air pushing the ball forward? And you agree that after the moment the paintball is fired, there is no longer any deformation?

Well, since the force applied by the gas expelled through the bolt is far greater than that applied by the bolt*, which one do you think I mean?

I don't agree to anything. I don't know the properties well enough of a paintball's shell to say anything about how much it will deform. But deform it will. I will concede that paintball shells are made of a material that becomes very rigid when force is applied suddenly, and acts more like a fluid when force is applied slowly. This does obviously mean that it will act like a very rigid or solid material when fired. But as you have already agreed, there will be deformation, just like your hideously deformed Blackberry.

*If the force applied by the bolt were greater than that applied by the propellant gas, you wouldn't need the propellant gas.