The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

They1 · February 6, 2010, 02:40 PM

MG33, I'll respond to your 'comments' in-line:

I'm a bit amused. If this bullet was so great, do you think They would be promoting it so heavily here? He wouldn't have to, would he?

*There's a vast difference between "promoting", and sharing an idea in real time. Since I'm not selling anything, asking for money, seeking endorsements of any kind or looking for any particular gain, I have to ask; what exactly is my motive here?
There's no plot...I'm just an inventor, who likes to shoot, wants to protect myself from bad guys, and happened on an idea that in the very beginning, I sought information/input in these forums because logically, this is a great source, from many very knowledgeable folks.

I was right in doing so too. To date, I've collected a wealth of useful information.

Of course, sharing this project in a public forum will also bring out the full spectrum of responses, and personalities as well. Anyone with a computer can share their thoughts, some with more questionable abilities to restrain themselves than others.
________

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's pretty likely to be a duck. I am starting to suspect a duck. How about you?

*You like saying that, don't you? Even without context or application.
________

Further, he's real big on "Independent Testing." Well, so am I. Who was the independent tester? How do we know they are truly independent? And only three bullets, only one of which was the comparator?

*Yes, I AM big on independent, unbiased testing. If you had actually read earlier posts, I mentioned the source; Brass Fetcher (www.brassfetcher.com). Feel free to contact them if you like to confirm their "independence".

Why would I pay for multiple "comparator" gel-block shots for existing rounds that already have tons of documented performance stats? Wouldn't that be stupid? Let alone a waste of money?
_______

For all we know, the "data" he's presented here is his own. He's told us to wait for it; now it's here. Whose, in fact, is it?

*Yep, you got me. I doctored the photos. I used a special ruler to show greater penetration. I hit the bullets with a hammer to enhance expansion. I used a chisel to re-shape the expanded bullets. I bribed brassfetcher to show positive results.

I also pulled the wool over the manufacturers eyes as well, by sending them samples to test themselves. Later, I'll sneak into their test labs after their closed with my hammer and chisel. (guess I'll need my special ruler too)
__________

Further, do we know how many other bullets were tested which didn't produce results that look good? Or other non-hypercav bullets that performed better? Do we know if any trials were thrown out? (can you say "climategate"?).

*Every test done to date has expanded as expected...except one.

While we have been exploring the 'possibilities' of HC applications, we loaded a 115gr Speer Gold Dot onto a .380 case, loaded with 2.9gr of #231.
the round clocked at 661fps, and didn't expand as hoped (only 20% of potential). It did penetrate approx. 14.6" as I recall.
The control round didn't expand at all, penetration close to the same.
_________

No, we don't. We don't know anything except what he's telling us. I have a very hard time believing an "independent" tester would test...three bullets, only one of which is a control. Does this seem fishy to you, too?

*The independent tester shot what we paid to have shot. At a $100+ per block, I'd rather invest in a few shots of several different calibers and brands, than many of just one.

Tell you what...you send me the money, and I'll test as many bullets as you want.
_________

And it's possible that the three bullets showed what he wanted so he stopped there, not actually trying hard to *disprove* the theory of hypercav (which approach, btw, is science).

*No, TWO bullets showed what I wanted to see so I stopped there. These were mid-performing S&B 9mm 115gr un-bonded JHP's. Further testing of other brands are pending. (science)
_________

[Off the top of my head, if I were going to test something like this, I'd probably do 30 bullets of each type (hypercav and controls) and then compare the results statistically. You can't do that kind of scientific testing with only 3 bullets.]

*See above
_________

Maybe this hypercav approach works, maybe it doesn't. I don't know. As a scientist, I have an open mind, but I also have a mind that is sensitive to what and how much information is presented.

*You can say you have an open mind all you want. But frankly from what I've seen you you TWO posts here, I think having an "open mind" is the LAST thing you can legitimately claim.
_________

I haven't seen any independent testing. Have any of you?

And if you think you have, how do you know it's independent?

*You're repeating yourself, sir...
_________

To demonstrate causality--a major goal of science--you must demontrate correlation, time order, and nonspuriousness.

"Correlation" means cause and effect are observably linked. Based on the "data" he's allowed us to see, that appears to be satisfied.

"Time order" means the cause precedes the effect. Pretty clear here too.

But "Nonspuriousness" means that there are no other explanations for the observed results. Other explanations can be things like sampling error (we have a sample of what here? Two, compared to one control?), other things which could have caused the observed results and are responsible for them.

As a scientist, I've learned that the key to finding out the "truth" is to be skeptical, to look for reasons why the conclusions are wrong. Those with any science training will recognize this--science can only disprove hypotheses, it can never prove them.

So I'm looking for reasons why this information we've been given might be wrong. This has nothing to do with slapping down inventors, being a naysayer, or any of the other comments applied to this approach. It has to do with how one does "science."

*On this, I totally agree. This statement is lucid, and chronicles the EXACT base formula and thought process necessary for any true, reasonable conclusion.
I used this very premise during Hypercavs' development. One moment of inspiration, followed by a series of incremental unemotional phases to establish any "errors of theory" along the way, and being prepared to stop at any point if an issue becomes manifest. At that point, you either address it, correct it, or terminate any further work.

(BTW: "nonspuriousness" is correct in this context. (elimination of rival hypotheses))
_________

Apparently, a number of posters *want* to believe, and I believe They1 has done a good job encouraging that.

*Maybe, just maybe, the "posters" simply see the base logic behind this project. These people aren't stupid.
Perhaps your education prevents you from seeing the obvious; that removing a 'compressible' gas from the expansion process, makes that process more efficient.

If you re-read my posts, I haven't 'encouraged' anything. I've simply shared this project. I leave any reactions to those who see it.
_________

But I see interesting voids in the information presented to us. A terrible sample, with no indication of who the "independent" tester is, nor what credentials they bring to the testing. No indication of what bullets, if any, have been shot through gelatin whose results don't seem consistent with expectations (does "climate data" ring a bell here for anyone?).

*I must ask; is all of this a "comprehension" issue with you? Or literacy? I gather that your a very well-educated guy, but the density you convey here makes me wonder where the malfunction is? (but only for a moment)
Perhaps you're angry that someone else thought of this instead of you? If so, not to worry. We did an international patent search back to 1922, and nobody else thought of it either.
_________

I see an "inventor" with a significant self-interest in self-promotion, but strange ways in which this is presented. We're told by They1 that independent testing will tell the tale, he won't show us his own data (if he even has any, for which we can only take his word). We're told that there are manufacturers who are interested in this, but no names.

*No, I've not given the names of the manufacturers, and I'm not going to.
You must have missed the memo about CONFIDENTIALITY.
When/if I enter into a licensing agreement with a given company, I'll announce who, if the licensee has no issue with such disclosure.
_________

We're told an awful lot here, but how many of you have actually been able to verify any of this?

I used to live in Missouri; you have to show me.

*Based on your general demeanor, I, on behalf of the Great State of Missouri, thank you for moving.
________

And so far I've been shown little except a lot of drumbeating designed to create interest. I've not seen any real evidence.

Until shown otherwise, my hypothesis is that this is a Duck. It looks like one, quacks and walks like one. It even smells like one. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm labeling it a Duck.

*An "open mind" has spoken.
*Quack...*
_______

And They1: My scientific "credentials" (note, btw, how concerned he is with that) are that I have a PhD in a science field. That PhD is from Penn State.

*I wasn't asking about your "credentials". Merely curious about your field of interest. I don't care that you have a PhD. Good for you.

I have a diverse background, and was just curious...

Interesting you're so defensive about such a benign question.

Credentials mean nothing if you cannot disseminate information. Any formal education means nothing if you don't have common sense. Any amount of knowledge means nothing if you don't have imagination.

Moosegoose,
I have taken the time to address you're ravings. Again, while you have this solid educational background, it appears you have significant issues and hostility. I suspect you work in obscurity, at least I hope so. Because you don't know how to communicate in a neutral/logical manner, you don't gather information well, and any other reasonable person working with you, would likely taken your head off by now.

I have no problem with critics. I enjoy and welcome spirited debate about many issues. I will never hesitate to explain, in detail, any project or subject based on the facts as I've developed to date. I also (although imperfectly) try to keep an open mind.

However, based on what I've learned from your statements, and your general demeanor, I do not wish to communicate with you further, and will not respond to any more of your "posts".

Mark Twain once said: "Never wrestle with a Pig, you both get dirty, and the Pig likes it."

Good day.

February 6, 2010, 02:40 PM	#107
They1 Member Join Date: November 24, 2009 Location: Missouri Posts: 44	MG33, I'll respond to your 'comments' in-line: I'm a bit amused. If this bullet was so great, do you think They would be promoting it so heavily here? He wouldn't have to, would he? There's a vast difference between "promoting", and sharing an idea in real time. Since I'm not selling anything, asking for money, seeking endorsements of any kind or looking for any particular gain, I have to ask; what exactly is my motive* here? There's no plot...I'm just an inventor, who likes to shoot, wants to protect myself from bad guys, and happened on an idea that in the very beginning, I sought information/input in these forums because logically, this is a great source, from many very knowledgeable folks. I was right in doing so too. To date, I've collected a wealth of useful information. Of course, sharing this project in a public forum will also bring out the full spectrum of responses, and personalities as well. Anyone with a computer can share their thoughts, some with more questionable abilities to restrain themselves than others. ________ If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's pretty likely to be a duck. I am starting to suspect a duck. How about you? You like saying that, don't you? Even without context or application. ________ Further, he's real big on "Independent Testing." Well, so am I. Who was the independent tester? How do we know they are truly independent? And only three bullets, only one of which was the comparator? Yes, I AM big on independent, unbiased testing. If you had actually read earlier posts, I mentioned the source; Brass Fetcher (www.brassfetcher.com). Feel free to contact them if you like to confirm their "independence". Why would I pay for multiple "comparator" gel-block shots for existing rounds that already have tons of documented performance stats? Wouldn't that be stupid? Let alone a waste of money? _______ For all we know, the "data" he's presented here is his own. He's told us to wait for it; now it's here. Whose, in fact, is it? Yep, you got me. I doctored the photos. I used a special ruler to show greater penetration. I hit the bullets with a hammer to enhance expansion. I used a chisel to re-shape the expanded bullets. I bribed brassfetcher to show positive results. I also pulled the wool over the manufacturers eyes as well, by sending them samples to test themselves. Later, I'll sneak into their test labs after their closed with my hammer and chisel. (guess I'll need my special ruler too) __________ Further, do we know how many other bullets were tested which didn't produce results that look good? Or other non-hypercav bullets that performed better? Do we know if any trials were thrown out? (can you say "climategate"?). Every test done to date has expanded as expected...except one. While we have been exploring the 'possibilities' of HC applications, we loaded a 115gr Speer Gold Dot onto a .380 case, loaded with 2.9gr of #231. the round clocked at 661fps, and didn't expand as hoped (only 20% of potential). It did penetrate approx. 14.6" as I recall. The control round didn't expand at all, penetration close to the same. _________ No, we don't. We don't know anything except what he's telling us. I have a very hard time believing an "independent" tester would test...three bullets, only one of which is a control. Does this seem fishy to you, too? The independent tester shot what we paid to have shot. At a $100+ per block, I'd rather invest in a few shots of several different calibers and brands, than many of just one. Tell you what...you send me the money, and I'll test as many bullets as you want. _________ And it's possible that the three bullets showed what he wanted so he stopped there, not actually trying hard to disprove* the theory of hypercav (which approach, btw, is science). No, TWO bullets showed what I wanted to see so I stopped there. These were mid-performing S&B 9mm 115gr un-bonded JHP's. Further testing of other brands are pending. (science) _________ [Off the top of my head, if I were going to test something like this, I'd probably do 30 bullets of each type (hypercav and controls) and then compare the results statistically. You can't do that kind of scientific testing with only 3 bullets.] See above _________ Maybe this hypercav approach works, maybe it doesn't. I don't know. As a scientist, I have an open mind, but I also have a mind that is sensitive to what and how much information is presented. You can say you have an open mind all you want. But frankly from what I've seen you you TWO posts here, I think having an "open mind" is the LAST thing you can legitimately claim. _________ I haven't seen any independent testing. Have any of you? And if you think you have, how do you know it's independent? You're repeating yourself, sir... _________ To demonstrate causality--a major goal of science--you must demontrate correlation, time order, and nonspuriousness. "Correlation" means cause and effect are observably linked. Based on the "data" he's allowed us to see, that appears to be satisfied. "Time order" means the cause precedes the effect. Pretty clear here too. But "Nonspuriousness" means that there are no other explanations for the observed results. Other explanations can be things like sampling error (we have a sample of what here? Two, compared to one control?), other things which could have caused the observed results and are responsible for them. As a scientist, I've learned that the key to finding out the "truth" is to be skeptical, to look for reasons why the conclusions are wrong. Those with any science training will recognize this--science can only disprove hypotheses, it can never prove them. So I'm looking for reasons why this information we've been given might be wrong. This has nothing to do with slapping down inventors, being a naysayer, or any of the other comments applied to this approach. It has to do with how one does "science." On this, I totally agree. This statement is lucid, and chronicles the EXACT base formula and thought process necessary for any true, reasonable conclusion. I used this very premise during Hypercavs' development. One moment of inspiration, followed by a series of incremental unemotional phases to establish any "errors of theory" along the way, and being prepared to stop at any point* if an issue becomes manifest. At that point, you either address it, correct it, or terminate any further work. (BTW: "nonspuriousness" is correct in this context. (elimination of rival hypotheses)) _________ Apparently, a number of posters want to believe, and I believe They1 has done a good job encouraging that. Maybe, just maybe, the "posters" simply see the base logic behind this project. These people aren't stupid. Perhaps your education prevents you from seeing the obvious; that removing a 'compressible' gas from the expansion process, makes that process more efficient. If you re-read my posts, I haven't 'encouraged' anything. I've simply shared this project. I leave any reactions to those who see it. _________ But I see interesting voids in the information presented to us. A terrible sample, with no indication of who the "independent" tester is, nor what credentials they bring to the testing. No indication of what bullets, if any, have been shot through gelatin whose results don't seem consistent with expectations (does "climate data" ring a bell here for anyone?). I must ask; is all of this a "comprehension" issue with you? Or literacy? I gather that your a very well-educated guy, but the density you convey here makes me wonder where the malfunction is? (but only for a moment) Perhaps you're angry that someone else thought of this instead of you? If so, not to worry. We did an international patent search back to 1922, and nobody else thought of it either. _________ I see an "inventor" with a significant self-interest in self-promotion, but strange ways in which this is presented. We're told by They1 that independent testing will tell the tale, he won't show us his own data (if he even has any, for which we can only take his word). We're told that there are manufacturers who are interested in this, but no names. No, I've not given the names of the manufacturers, and I'm not going to. You must have missed the memo about CONFIDENTIALITY. When/if I enter into a licensing agreement with a given company, I'll announce who, if the licensee has no issue with such disclosure. _________ We're told an awful lot here, but how many of you have actually been able to verify any of this? I used to live in Missouri; you have to show me. Based on your general demeanor, I, on behalf of the Great State of Missouri, thank you for moving. ________ And so far I've been shown little except a lot of drumbeating designed to create interest. I've not seen any real evidence. Until shown otherwise, my hypothesis is that this is a Duck. It looks like one, quacks and walks like one. It even smells like one. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm labeling it a Duck. An "open mind" has spoken. Quack...* _______ And They1: My scientific "credentials" (note, btw, how concerned he is with that) are that I have a PhD in a science field. That PhD is from Penn State. *I wasn't asking about your "credentials". Merely curious about your field of interest. I don't care that you have a PhD. Good for you. I have a diverse background, and was just curious... Interesting you're so defensive about such a benign question. Credentials mean nothing if you cannot disseminate information. Any formal education means nothing if you don't have common sense. Any amount of knowledge means nothing if you don't have imagination. Moosegoose, I have taken the time to address you're ravings. Again, while you have this solid educational background, it appears you have significant issues and hostility. I suspect you work in obscurity, at least I hope so. Because you don't know how to communicate in a neutral/logical manner, you don't gather information well, and any other reasonable person working with you, would likely taken your head off by now. I have no problem with critics. I enjoy and welcome spirited debate about many issues. I will never hesitate to explain, in detail, any project or subject based on the facts as I've developed to date. I also (although imperfectly) try to keep an open mind. However, based on what I've learned from your statements, and your general demeanor, I do not wish to communicate with you further, and will not respond to any more of your "posts". Mark Twain once said: "Never wrestle with a Pig, you both get dirty, and the Pig likes it." Good day.