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
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Do Bullets Go To Sleep?
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="Michael Courtney" data-source="post: 778064" data-attributes="member: 28191"><p>The calibration was done with the three chronographs at 10, 12, and 14 feet from the muzzle. The LED skyscreens greatly reduce the influence of changing light conditions. We've calibrated the chronographs many different times (different days, different light conditions, etc.) and we've never had them fail to meet the 0.3% specification with the LED skyscreens, and the accuracy outside is not distinctly worse than the accuracy inside. </p><p></p><p>[media=youtube]4pF8W5liSRc[/media]</p><p></p><p>The shape of the pitch and yaw is best described in the above video which is referenced in the paper. The video describes it much better than simple verbal descriptions like circular or elliptical. The theory really is very well worked out by Bryan Litz (see also <a href="http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/EpicyclicSwerve.htm" target="_blank">Epicyclic Swerve</a> ) based on the earlier work of Braun and McCoy. The only thing our new experimental technique reveals is how big the effect is for a specific bullet and rifle and how quickly the pitch and yaw are damped in flight for a specific bullet and rifle. The theory can describe the subsequent motion for a given set of initial conditions, but the magnitude of the effect for a given rifle and bullet depend on the initial conditions. </p><p></p><p>It is not completely clear if the shot-to-shot variations in drag are due to shot-to-shot variations in tip off rate, manufacturing variations in different bullets, or other experimental contributions to the uncertainty. We've managed to achieve Cd measurements with accuracy in the 1-2% range over the 100 yard interval and in the 3-4% range over the two 50 yard intervals with less than $1k of equipment. $100k of equipment could reduce the experimental error, but it still would not tell you whether you were seeing shot-to-shot variations in the tip off rate or in the Cd of different bullets. We did intentionally pick a bullet where we had observed small shot-to-shot drag variations in the past. </p><p></p><p>You may be remembering the stability papers co-authored with Don Miller where I shot the downrange chronograph. Since that event (Summer 2011), we've been much more careful. Our main upgrade in chronograph safety is having Elya or Amy behind the trigger, while I've been demoted to data recorder when we take data. Elya was the shooter for this experiment, so the chronographs were safe.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Courtney, post: 778064, member: 28191"] The calibration was done with the three chronographs at 10, 12, and 14 feet from the muzzle. The LED skyscreens greatly reduce the influence of changing light conditions. We've calibrated the chronographs many different times (different days, different light conditions, etc.) and we've never had them fail to meet the 0.3% specification with the LED skyscreens, and the accuracy outside is not distinctly worse than the accuracy inside. [media=youtube]4pF8W5liSRc[/media] The shape of the pitch and yaw is best described in the above video which is referenced in the paper. The video describes it much better than simple verbal descriptions like circular or elliptical. The theory really is very well worked out by Bryan Litz (see also [URL="http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/index_files/EpicyclicSwerve.htm"]Epicyclic Swerve[/URL] ) based on the earlier work of Braun and McCoy. The only thing our new experimental technique reveals is how big the effect is for a specific bullet and rifle and how quickly the pitch and yaw are damped in flight for a specific bullet and rifle. The theory can describe the subsequent motion for a given set of initial conditions, but the magnitude of the effect for a given rifle and bullet depend on the initial conditions. It is not completely clear if the shot-to-shot variations in drag are due to shot-to-shot variations in tip off rate, manufacturing variations in different bullets, or other experimental contributions to the uncertainty. We've managed to achieve Cd measurements with accuracy in the 1-2% range over the 100 yard interval and in the 3-4% range over the two 50 yard intervals with less than $1k of equipment. $100k of equipment could reduce the experimental error, but it still would not tell you whether you were seeing shot-to-shot variations in the tip off rate or in the Cd of different bullets. We did intentionally pick a bullet where we had observed small shot-to-shot drag variations in the past. You may be remembering the stability papers co-authored with Don Miller where I shot the downrange chronograph. Since that event (Summer 2011), we've been much more careful. Our main upgrade in chronograph safety is having Elya or Amy behind the trigger, while I've been demoted to data recorder when we take data. Elya was the shooter for this experiment, so the chronographs were safe. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Do Bullets Go To Sleep?
Top