Myths and Mysticism in Load Development

[DingoDeerHunter]

This post has morphed into the ridiculous but it's a great topic and well worth continuing, but it would be much better without personal attacks and soap boxes.
So here we go with an attempt at analysis without personal attacks.

----------
"Why did the chicken cross the road?"

Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road moved beneath the chicken depends upon your frame of reference. A. Einstein.

This might explain some of the 'one-eyedness' around here.
However the loudness of personal attacks is not related to the above, but it is the inverse of being able to mount a logical argument.

----------
So we have some respected pundits in the shooting world who have raised doubts about the validity of some long held beliefs. whether it's tuners, powder load or nodes, doesn't matter. The thing is it challenges long held beliefs. I would have thought it was an opportunity to learn, to improve or shoot more X's.
But no, around here, it goes retrograde, back to the dark ages.

---------

Reminds me of an historical lesson.
Back in 1842, one CJ Doppler proposed a theory of Doppler shift - you know, that same theory that is at work in your LabRadar, is used in medicine and space exploration. Commonly called red-shift.
He was ridiculed for 26 years because it didn't fit commonly held beliefs, until one W Huggins made observations that proved him correct.
The "commonly held beliefs" (the existence of luminiferous ether) were mumbo-jumbo, but fitted the observations of the believers and so morphed into "fact".

So beware, that ridicule you are dishing out could come back as egg in face.

I suspect that Litz and Co. are correct and if so, they are doing the non believers a favour by correcting a myth. If Litz and Co aren't correct then they are still doing non believers a favour by reinforcing belief in the status quo and giving knowledge of where to look for improvement.
Pete

This is patently not the case, and whilst it MAY SEEM like a personal attack to you or dingo, If i was to say that you had 2 arms, that would be a fact. 2 eyes, fact. Point out you have a shit attitude though, oh no criticism!!! Ad hominemsss!!!! Personal Attacks!!!!!!!

No mate, negative reinforcement to devalidate and discourage poor attitude and conduct - something that has been pointed out quite a bit and to ignore has to be a deliberate choice to miss the mark.

To conduct yourself poorly, then cry you're the victim is the TRUE definition of weakness.

Bryan may be right, he maybe be wrong - information is good and the more information the better.

Poor attitude on the other hand, does not deserve time and respect, and therefore it won't get it - and there has been a united front form against that.

I'm genuinely shocked that anyone would come in here at this point and plant their flag in allegiance of dingo

Going off your responses, you're siding with litz and have similarly taken a condescending tone and approach to the discussion - the mind wanders to whether Dingo may just be a smurf account.

There is no value to be had here regardless, because the litz fan boys just think everyone else is wrong, and the none litzers, despite applying skill knowledge and experience and showing examples and bringing up elements of the tests that maybe be flawed and variables etc etc - will never be right, will never be heard, because the lizters don't want to listen. Don't want to see. They are here to lecture and smugly talk down to people when they try to bring up elements to the discussion.

So gallop through here on your high horse all you want, but targets are up champ and the ones who declared it were the targets themselves.

I'm SHOCKED this this forum has been allowed to continue, but here we are.

just go away and ignore this thread, your whiny opining about nonsense just clogs up the thread where others a putting up challenging and scientific material.

I may be dead wrong, Litz may be dead wrong - that’s more than possible, but you don’t contribute to finding out, you’re just a teenager mentality dishing out memes, go back to Facebook.

[Drop shot]

This post has morphed into the ridiculous but it's a great topic and well worth continuing, but it would be much better without personal attacks and soap boxes.
So here we go with an attempt at analysis without personal attacks.

----------
"Why did the chicken cross the road?"

Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road moved beneath the chicken depends upon your frame of reference. A. Einstein.

This might explain some of the 'one-eyedness' around here.
However the loudness of personal attacks is not related to the above, but it is the inverse of being able to mount a logical argument.

----------
So we have some respected pundits in the shooting world who have raised doubts about the validity of some long held beliefs. whether it's tuners, powder load or nodes, doesn't matter. The thing is it challenges long held beliefs. I would have thought it was an opportunity to learn, to improve or shoot more X's.
But no, around here, it goes retrograde, back to the dark ages.

---------

Reminds me of an historical lesson.
Back in 1842, one CJ Doppler proposed a theory of Doppler shift - you know, that same theory that is at work in your LabRadar, is used in medicine and space exploration. Commonly called red-shift.
He was ridiculed for 26 years because it didn't fit commonly held beliefs, until one W Huggins made observations that proved him correct.
The "commonly held beliefs" (the existence of luminiferous ether) were mumbo-jumbo, but fitted the observations of the believers and so morphed into "fact".

So beware, that ridicule you are dishing out could come back as egg in face.

I suspect that Litz and Co. are correct and if so, they are doing the non believers a favour by correcting a myth. If Litz and Co aren't correct then they are still doing non believers a favour by reinforcing belief in the status quo and giving knowledge of where to look for improvement.
Pete

This is patently not the case, and whilst it MAY SEEM like a personal attack to you or dingo, If i was to say that you had 2 arms, that would be a fact. 2 eyes, fact. Point out you have a shit attitude though, oh no criticism!!! Ad hominemsss!!!! Personal Attacks!!!!!!!

No mate, negative reinforcement to devalidate and discourage poor attitude and conduct - something that has been pointed out quite a bit and to ignore has to be a deliberate choice to miss the mark.

To conduct yourself poorly, then cry you're the victim is the TRUE definition of weakness.

Bryan may be right, he maybe be wrong - information is good and the more information the better.

Poor attitude on the other hand, does not deserve time and respect, and therefore it won't get it - and there has been a united front form against that.

I'm genuinely shocked that anyone would come in here at this point and plant their flag in allegiance of dingo

Going off your responses, you're siding with litz and have similarly taken a condescending tone and approach to the discussion - the mind wanders to whether Dingo may just be a smurf account.

There is no value to be had here regardless, because the litz fan boys just think everyone else is wrong, and the none litzers, despite applying skill knowledge and experience and showing examples and bringing up elements of the tests that maybe be flawed and variables etc etc - will never be right, will never be heard, because the lizters don't want to listen. Don't want to see. They are here to lecture and smugly talk down to people when they try to bring up elements to the discussion.

So gallop through here on your high horse all you want, but targets are up champ and the ones who declared it were the targets themselves.

I'm SHOCKED this this forum has been allowed to continue, but here we are.

just go away and ignore this thread, your whiny opining about nonsense just clogs up the thread where others a putting up challenging and scientific material.

I may be dead wrong, Litz may be dead wrong - that’s more than possible, but you don’t contribute to finding out, you’re just a teenager mentality dishing out memes, go back to Facebook.

[DingoDeerHunter]

I'll leave this for those who have enquiring minds seeking well written information.
http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm
http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/modelling_barrel_vibrations.htm

While it's based on rimfire, the physics are the same....

That was excellent to read.

Someone did a thesis as well, I will say now that perhaps some movement does occur prior to muzzle exit - this thesis was very thorough. It also commends tuning, but it also shows that a twiddly knob in the end of the barrel isn’t how you tune it, but rather a series of weights along the barrel at different modes of action. Very interesting!!

https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/viewco ... graddis%22

The trick would be that you may well need to replicate their testing to find the modes of action to place the weights. Otherwise you’re back to small sample size problem and trading tea leaves to work out where the weight made a statistically significant difference.

[DingoDeerHunter]

This is another study on tuners, more rigor and a larger sample size… but I suspect it will be dismissed on some grounds by some folk somewhere….

https://www.kineticsecuritysolutions.co ... ng-results

Hahahaha

Small sample size, and the 5 x 5 group confirmation between best and worst “node” showed:

BEST: varied from 0.34MOA to 1.04MOA (a threefold level of variance!!! Crikey!!!)

WORST: varied from 0.58MOA to 1.29MOA

As if anything can be drawn from such garbage data and low resolution data.

Nice try but no bananas.

Don’t worry, you’ll still sell this magical device to people even if it doesn’t work, it’s 2023 - people don’t care about facts anymore.

[Drop shot]

This is another study on tuners, more rigor and a larger sample size… but I suspect it will be dismissed on some grounds by some folk somewhere….

https://www.kineticsecuritysolutions.co ... ng-results

Hahahaha

Small sample size, and the 5 x 5 group confirmation between best and worst “node” showed:

BEST: varied from 0.34MOA to 1.04MOA (a threefold level of variance!!! Crikey!!!)

WORST: varied from 0.58MOA to 1.29MOA

As if anything can be drawn from such garbage data and low resolution data.

Nice try but no bananas.

Don’t worry, you’ll still sell this magical device to people even if it doesn’t work, it’s 2023 - people don’t care about facts anymore.

I just ran this response through my arrogant-flog-ometer and it came back with 10/10 dead horses - but yeah nah, unjustified ad hominems for sure.

I calibrated the machine prior with a baseline of flog conduct - fortunately, there was a statistically significant number of examples of you being a flog.

So i'm inclined to trust the results here - thoughts?

[!Peter!]

This is another study on tuners, more rigor and a larger sample size… but I suspect it will be dismissed on some grounds by some folk somewhere….

https://www.kineticsecuritysolutions.co ... ng-results

Hahahaha

Small sample size, and the 5 x 5 group confirmation between best and worst “node” showed:

BEST: varied from 0.34MOA to 1.04MOA (a threefold level of variance!!! Crikey!!!)

WORST: varied from 0.58MOA to 1.29MOA

As if anything can be drawn from such garbage data and low resolution data.

Nice try but no bananas.

Don’t worry, you’ll still sell this magical device to people even if it doesn’t work, it’s 2023 - people don’t care about facts anymore.

Perhaps responses like this is why you're getting the reception you're getting.....

I'll leave this for those who have enquiring minds seeking well written information.
http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm
http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/modelling_barrel_vibrations.htm

While it's based on rimfire, the physics are the same....

That was excellent to read.

Someone did a thesis as well, I will say now that perhaps some movement does occur prior to muzzle exit - this thesis was very thorough. It also commends tuning, but it also shows that a twiddly knob in the end of the barrel isn’t how you tune it, but rather a series of weights along the barrel at different modes of action. Very interesting!!

https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/viewco ... graddis%22

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it "shows that a twiddly knob in the end of the barrel isn’t how you tune it". The author considered shortening the barrel (section 6.1), changing the barrel profile (section 6.2), and placing masses at nodal points (section 6.3), but does not consider a mass at the end of a barrel.

Irrespective of that, I'm surprised you've accepted that conclusion based on two 2 shot tests as stated in section 5....

BTW use of weights along the barrel is a tuning method used in smallbore.

[DingoDeerHunter]

This is another study on tuners, more rigor and a larger sample size… but I suspect it will be dismissed on some grounds by some folk somewhere….

https://www.kineticsecuritysolutions.co ... ng-results

Hahahaha

Small sample size, and the 5 x 5 group confirmation between best and worst “node” showed:

BEST: varied from 0.34MOA to 1.04MOA (a threefold level of variance!!! Crikey!!!)

WORST: varied from 0.58MOA to 1.29MOA

As if anything can be drawn from such garbage data and low resolution data.

Nice try but no bananas.

Don’t worry, you’ll still sell this magical device to people even if it doesn’t work, it’s 2023 - people don’t care about facts anymore.

Perhaps responses like this is why you're getting the reception you're getting.....

I'll leave this for those who have enquiring minds seeking well written information.
http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm
http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/modelling_barrel_vibrations.htm

While it's based on rimfire, the physics are the same....

That was excellent to read.

Someone did a thesis as well, I will say now that perhaps some movement does occur prior to muzzle exit - this thesis was very thorough. It also commends tuning, but it also shows that a twiddly knob in the end of the barrel isn’t how you tune it, but rather a series of weights along the barrel at different modes of action. Very interesting!!

https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/viewco ... graddis%22

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it "shows that a twiddly knob in the end of the barrel isn’t how you tune it". The author considered shortening the barrel (section 6.1), changing the barrel profile (section 6.2), and placing masses at nodal points (section 6.3), but does not consider a mass at the end of a barrel.

Irrespective of that, I'm surprised you've accepted that conclusion based on two 2 shot tests as stated in section 5....

BTW use of weights along the barrel is a tuning method used in smallbore.

I didn’t accept it, just noted the authors conclusions. The small sample problem is endemic in this arena, which is why something like Hornady and slits and others testing of large sample sizes has shown small group analysis is just playing with noise or more properly variance.

[!Peter!]

Hahahaha

Small sample size, and the 5 x 5 group confirmation between best and worst “node” showed:

BEST: varied from 0.34MOA to 1.04MOA (a threefold level of variance!!! Crikey!!!)

WORST: varied from 0.58MOA to 1.29MOA

As if anything can be drawn from such garbage data and low resolution data.

Nice try but no bananas.

Don’t worry, you’ll still sell this magical device to people even if it doesn’t work, it’s 2023 - people don’t care about facts anymore.

Perhaps responses like this is why you're getting the reception you're getting.....

That was excellent to read.

Someone did a thesis as well, I will say now that perhaps some movement does occur prior to muzzle exit - this thesis was very thorough. It also commends tuning, but it also shows that a twiddly knob in the end of the barrel isn’t how you tune it, but rather a series of weights along the barrel at different modes of action. Very interesting!!

https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/cgi/viewco ... graddis%22

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it "shows that a twiddly knob in the end of the barrel isn’t how you tune it". The author considered shortening the barrel (section 6.1), changing the barrel profile (section 6.2), and placing masses at nodal points (section 6.3), but does not consider a mass at the end of a barrel.

Irrespective of that, I'm surprised you've accepted that conclusion based on two 2 shot tests as stated in section 5....

BTW use of weights along the barrel is a tuning method used in smallbore.

I didn’t accept it, just noted the authors conclusions. The small sample problem is endemic in this arena, which is why something like Hornady and slits and others testing of large sample sizes has shown small group analysis is just playing with noise or more properly variance.

Ok, so how have you came to the conclusion that author "shows that a twiddly knob in the end of the barrel isn’t how you tune it"? Can you point me to a specific place in the thesis where this conclusion is drawn.

[DingoDeerHunter]

Their conclusion that the modes of action were elsewhere and required substantial weight, be they right or wrong about that being practically achievable it shows that micro adjustments dangling of the end is farcical in terms of the mechanisms of action they identified.

[!Peter!]

Their conclusion that the modes of action were elsewhere and required substantial weight, be they right or wrong about that being practically achievable it shows that micro adjustments dangling of the end is farcical in terms of the mechanisms of action they identified.

Specifically where do they make that conclusion? Give me the exact paragraph?

[DingoDeerHunter]

Perhaps you should read the entire document rather than just the conclusions and bstract and you wouldn’t be asking this question.

[!Peter!]

Perhaps you should read the entire document rather than just the conclusions and bstract and you wouldn’t be asking this question.

I did read the entire document. I can also understand the mathematical methods used throughout the thesis.

As stated previously, I cannot see how you've come to the conclusion that author "shows that a twiddly knob in the end of the barrel isn’t how you tune it", hence me seeking more information from you to understand how you came to that conclusion. Yet you've failed provide a specific reference from the thesis to substantiate your conclusion that the author "shows that a twiddly knob in the end of the barrel isn’t how you tune it" and now you're being presumptuous with assuming I haven't read the entire document.

Am I to understand that you cannot direct me to a specific paragraph where the author "shows that a twiddly knob in the end of the barrel isn’t how you tune it"?

[DingoDeerHunter]

You are entitled to teach your own conclusion, facetious questions aside. But the paper as a whole clearly stands opposed to the twiddly know on the end of a barrel being useful. Perhaps you reached the opposite conclusion from the paper. So be it.

Section 6.3 second paragraph states expressly that tuning requires placing weight at more than one location, ergot….

[Drop shot]

You are entitled to teach your own conclusion, facetious questions aside. But the paper as a whole clearly stands opposed to the twiddly know on the end of a barrel being useful. Perhaps you reached the opposite conclusion from the paper. So be it.

Section 6.3 second paragraph states expressly that tuning requires placing weight at more than one location, ergot….

[!Peter!]

You are entitled to teach your own conclusion, facetious questions aside. But the paper as a whole clearly stands opposed to the twiddly know on the end of a barrel being useful. Perhaps you reached the opposite conclusion from the paper. So be it.

Section 6.3 second paragraph states expressly that tuning requires placing weight at more than one location, ergot….

You mean this paragraph?

This results in mass applied to each degree of freedom proportional to the modeshape at
each mode. Thus, [μ] is not simply the total mass of the system divided by the displacement
degrees of freedom. It is a diagonal matrix, but the values of μii are not all equal. It may be
shown using the mathematical algorithm for this system’s response, that adding mass to the last
two degrees of freedom improve precision by reducing muzzle displacement and muzzle angular
error at projectile exit. However, if a tuning system were installed on the rifle that allowed
placement of masses at the longitudinal locations of the discretized masses of the barrel, it then
becomes possible to tune the response to something more favorable. For example, if the vector
ζ = [1, 1, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5] were multiplied by the mass matrix M , the response of the system
entirely changes. This operation mathematically represents tuning masses placed at nodes 10, 8,
6, and 4 that sum to five times the discretized modal mass at those locations i.e. a series of masses
precisely mounted at nodal points along the vibrating beam. The impact in the mathematical
system is a significant improvement in both muzzle displacement and muzzle tip angle at the
time of projectile exit.