Simply put, my facts agree with Harold Vaughn, your theoretical nonscientific tripe does not. I will take his 30 years of research, over your 3 days of Doppler fondling any time, any where.
Not to mention the fine scientists and engineers at Sandia National Laboratories that structured tests to prove concepts pioneered by Harold and his crew of professionals. Concepts that proved very successful in the real world of nuclear ordinance delivery systems.
You had your one and only chance to step up to the plate with a scientific justification for your perpetual motion bullet theory. Instead you decided to get personal so before I go there.......
Last time I checked the common boat tail bullet design is aerodynamically unstable and must be gyroscopically stabilized with this little thing we call SPIN that can be measured in radians per second.
Since any remotely sane equation for gyroscopic stability shows that spinrate (think radians per second) is a major influence on GS, and Mach number only a slight influence:
And it takes energy to accelerate (DO WORK) increase spin frequency (MORE radians per second)
WHERE DOES THIS ENERGY COME FROM?
Does the BULLET'S ENERGY REALLY INCREASE AFTER IT LEAVES THE BARREL?
Or would you have us believe that the spin moment of inertia increases independently of spin frequency by some majical force Obi Wan doesn't even know about.
You see Warren there is this little thing called E = MC squared.......
I would not be so arrogant as to give some one I don't know an unsolicited recommendation, however, I do see some plausible options.....
A) Spend less time shooting, fondling RADAR, giving unsolicited recommendations, and more time NEAR your computer FIXING that EMBARASSING SOFTWARE you make available on your website (lostriverballistic.com)
B) Go back to designing crates for hand grenades, and stay away from large radiation sources.
C) Figure out how to make higher density bullets with the CP closer to the CG and NOT VIOLATE ANYONE ELSES PATENTS. Some respectable terminal effect at long range impact velocities would be a nice addition.
D) Keep doing what your doing: insulting people, promoting myths, and TAKING ALL THOSE CREDIT CARDS.
Time to come out from behind the veil. If you feel free to discuss my background, lets find out what yours is.
I give my name and my website. From this you know where I work, where I live, my telephone number, how I was trained and the basis of positions I take and the opinions I give.
It is time for you to do the same.
You had no problem telling me that I what I was saying was not correct. When I simply told you that you were wrong, suddenly that is personal. It is not personal. If you think that, then you are wrong about that also. I know several thousand individuals who can quite competently calculate the ballistic equations. Being able to calculate the numbers and understanding the basis of those numbers is not the same thing.
When I said that you should get out from behind the computer and shoot the data in front of a good radar, I meant just that. You will find out what I did. There is a difference between what the numbers predict and what the projectile's actually do.
The proof of an idea is in item it produces. If you think that your idea is better, then make something that shows it. Make the superior bullet, or cartridge, or rifle.
You seem to like to talk the talk. Let's see if you can walk the walk.
Please forgive me for interupting here, but I just have to ask this. Is there a simple formula that the layman can use to determine the perfect bullet for any rifle that will produce the best accuracy at say 1000yds. In other words, considering, BC, rate of twist, can I determine how fast this bullet will have to be driven to provide the best accuracy on target? This would save a lot of cost and barrel wear.
Me too. This got me thinking(a painful process sometimes), and after reviewing Mr. Rinker's text in the Varmint Hunters Magazine I may have jumped to an improper conclusion. He didn't preclude the idea of intractability, but did describe the circumstance wherein the increasing stability factor(5.0 or greater) at long range will have an adverse influence on accuracy. He also suggested that if a choice was made regarding twist rates it was preferable to slightly over stabilize rather than marginally stabilize, this apparently flying in the face of a lot of conventional wisdom. Or so he said.
Warren I don't know enough about this to influence the preceeding discussion. It is a subject I only recently began to explore, perhaps like some others here. Your comments have my respect and are appreciated.