Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
7mm Allen Mag test rifle finished.....
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Richard338" data-source="post: 76490" data-attributes="member: 1537"><p><strong>Re: wc872 burn rate</strong></p><p></p><p>BigBore,</p><p>Please read this one post carefully. I will explain from my perspective why you are wrong, and why you owe myself and others an apology. I will not be your new Dan Hackett, so if you don't get where I'm coming from after this, then we can just agree that we can't comunicate.</p><p></p><p>My summary:</p><p>1) People posted observations about hotter/cooler burning powders.</p><p>2) You said they are wrong, and it is all "hi-skoul" chemistry.</p><p>3) I commented that a burning powder charge is a complex, high-temperature/pressure, non-equilibrium system.</p><p>4) You dismiss this by saying "it is neither"</p><p>etc etc</p><p></p><p>Any chemist would call a mixture of more than 6 reacting gasses complex (fact). A reaction occuring at 1000's of degrees and up to 50000 psi is high temp/pressure (fact). These accompanied by a rapidly changing reaction chamber would be non-equilibrium (fact).</p><p></p><p>You tell me to provide credible references for my points, while you simply state yours. Then you apologize that your explanations aren't always clear because you are used to talking to educated people. This is insulting, and arrogant. Even if you were right it is very condescending.</p><p></p><p>You have some major misconceptions about the phenomena here.</p><p>The idea that the purpose of a propellant is to produce gasses is very basic. A byproduct of the reactions is also heat. This heat further increases the reaction rate and pressure. I think most people on this board know this. To try to clear up what you don't understand, I have asked you:</p><p>1) state clearly what YOU think is happening.</p><p>2) Tell me who the chemists are who you have missunderstood.</p><p></p><p>As far as the references you can forget all but one.</p><p>Gun Propulsion Technology (progress in aeronautics and astronautics). I only gave the one you criticized because it has web access for all. I don't know what journals etc you can access.</p><p></p><p>You dismiss this saying "I'll stick to science thanks!!?"</p><p>That book is the most authoritative on this subject!</p><p></p><p>The reason I feel you should apologize is not because you are wrong (anyone can be wrong), but because of your insulting way of telling everyone how "well educated" you are.</p><p>When I comment on a topic I try to give a simple bottom line. I don't pull out my resume and tell people I'll try to dumb it down for them. You try to mention functions, and tell people you can help them integrate things.</p><p></p><p>It is very much like someone with only a Masters degree to a) tell everyone about their degree, and b) be wrong. You come off as a real assballs, while not impressing me in the least.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Richard338, post: 76490, member: 1537"] [b]Re: wc872 burn rate[/b] BigBore, Please read this one post carefully. I will explain from my perspective why you are wrong, and why you owe myself and others an apology. I will not be your new Dan Hackett, so if you don't get where I'm coming from after this, then we can just agree that we can't comunicate. My summary: 1) People posted observations about hotter/cooler burning powders. 2) You said they are wrong, and it is all "hi-skoul" chemistry. 3) I commented that a burning powder charge is a complex, high-temperature/pressure, non-equilibrium system. 4) You dismiss this by saying "it is neither" etc etc Any chemist would call a mixture of more than 6 reacting gasses complex (fact). A reaction occuring at 1000's of degrees and up to 50000 psi is high temp/pressure (fact). These accompanied by a rapidly changing reaction chamber would be non-equilibrium (fact). You tell me to provide credible references for my points, while you simply state yours. Then you apologize that your explanations aren't always clear because you are used to talking to educated people. This is insulting, and arrogant. Even if you were right it is very condescending. You have some major misconceptions about the phenomena here. The idea that the purpose of a propellant is to produce gasses is very basic. A byproduct of the reactions is also heat. This heat further increases the reaction rate and pressure. I think most people on this board know this. To try to clear up what you don't understand, I have asked you: 1) state clearly what YOU think is happening. 2) Tell me who the chemists are who you have missunderstood. As far as the references you can forget all but one. Gun Propulsion Technology (progress in aeronautics and astronautics). I only gave the one you criticized because it has web access for all. I don't know what journals etc you can access. You dismiss this saying "I'll stick to science thanks!!?" That book is the most authoritative on this subject! The reason I feel you should apologize is not because you are wrong (anyone can be wrong), but because of your insulting way of telling everyone how "well educated" you are. When I comment on a topic I try to give a simple bottom line. I don't pull out my resume and tell people I'll try to dumb it down for them. You try to mention functions, and tell people you can help them integrate things. It is very much like someone with only a Masters degree to a) tell everyone about their degree, and b) be wrong. You come off as a real assballs, while not impressing me in the least. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
7mm Allen Mag test rifle finished.....
Top