The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

highrolls · February 10, 2013, 12:43 AM

Whisper 300-
"The Grand Canyon started off a lot less deep than it is today-look at what 200 million years of erosion will do."

Great example. Lets shorten the time scale by several orders of magnitude and use a harder material than aggregates. Lets use glass. Lets use only one zero and go down to decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_B..._California%29

Brian Pfleuger-
"Powder that's traveling is being shaken against other powder and containers non-stop. There is zero reason to believe that there would be any difference between that and a vibratory tumbler."

I am puzzled by your use of the term "non-stop". While that may imply fixed-frequency to some, the traveling is random frequency. It is also damped linear, one degree of freedom.

Lets try an example: You are tasked to ship another large order of glassware and you inspect the shipment to assure that the shipping folks have packaged it in the same manner (common sense) that they always have. Unknown to you, the transport arrives in the only vehicle available, a large cement mix truck. The order is loaded into the mixer (cargo area) and leaves, with the mixer engaged for the trip. (Fixed frequency, more than one degree of freedom)

The shipping folks represent packaged products, glass or ammo, prepared to reasonably make the journey using common sense. The powder inside the ammo gets shaken in the sense of a drop tube, linear forcing function (up and down kinda thing).

Throwing the glassware shipment into a cement mixer represents the tumbler, but I will credit that the cement truck also duplicates the shipping random frequency stuff on top of the tumbler action. There is a difference and you certainly do not need to take my word for that.

snuffy-
"ANY type of powder is tough stuff. It resembles a plastic, it's hard and dense. It also just happens to have a lubricant applied to it, graphite."

Hard and dense kinda like glass ? Graphite needs water vapor to be a lubricant, which makes it corrosive in some environments. Without the water vapor it is abrasive. Keep your powder dry, snuffy.

snuffy-
"Nobody is going to introduce an abrasive into a powder charge. It would NOT be good for the barrels."

If there is no abrasive action going on in barrels, why is it that they wear ?

snuffy-
"It's pretty obvious you don't understand how a primer is constructed."

I do not know how the motherboard on my computer is constructed either. Neither my comment nor yours is useful to the discussion. But thank you for confirming that a primer is constrained by the cup, not contained by it.

snuffy-
" There will be NO change to the primer from tumbling."

Open ended and definitive statements are easy to challenge. Snuffy, try this. Take the media out of your tumbler. Empty a brick (1000) of fresh primers in the tumbler. Turn it on. The only question now is how much time will it take to prove to yourself your statement should be re-phrased.

Humor Break:

Brian Pfleuger-
"Of course, these scientists are the same people that won't accept that surgical sterilization works on deer unless the animals are tracked to prove that they don't have babies."

Actually just the opposite occurred in Jurassic Park. The scientists created all female dinosaurs to be sure they don't have babies. In the movie the statement of "Nature will find a way" was the classic line to refute the scientists.

Brian Pfleuger-
"Repeated test with various powders have consistently shown that there is no effect."

Repeated tests are not the same thing as repeatable tests. Repeated tests are fun to talk about but they neither show nor prove anything.

I am wrapping up my posting in this thread. Thanks guys, I really enjoyed this but this level of effort is over cause I am too lazy to continue it.

I will leave all of you with an example of a repeatable test. First, pick any forum you want that has debate-able issues cropping up on a regular basis.

Jump in without taking sides, do your best to propose a definitive solution, and just watch. My tests so far lead me to conclude that the debate on these issues is far preferable to solving them. If you really do propose something that might work, your neutrality is ignored. How dare you endanger our favorite BS topics. Try it, it's fun.

February 10, 2013, 12:43 AM	#34
highrolls Senior Member Join Date: January 20, 2009 Location: already given Posts: 115	Whisper 300- "The Grand Canyon started off a lot less deep than it is today-look at what 200 million years of erosion will do." Great example. Lets shorten the time scale by several orders of magnitude and use a harder material than aggregates. Lets use glass. Lets use only one zero and go down to decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_B..._California%29 Brian Pfleuger- "Powder that's traveling is being shaken against other powder and containers non-stop. There is zero reason to believe that there would be any difference between that and a vibratory tumbler." I am puzzled by your use of the term "non-stop". While that may imply fixed-frequency to some, the traveling is random frequency. It is also damped linear, one degree of freedom. Lets try an example: You are tasked to ship another large order of glassware and you inspect the shipment to assure that the shipping folks have packaged it in the same manner (common sense) that they always have. Unknown to you, the transport arrives in the only vehicle available, a large cement mix truck. The order is loaded into the mixer (cargo area) and leaves, with the mixer engaged for the trip. (Fixed frequency, more than one degree of freedom) The shipping folks represent packaged products, glass or ammo, prepared to reasonably make the journey using common sense. The powder inside the ammo gets shaken in the sense of a drop tube, linear forcing function (up and down kinda thing). Throwing the glassware shipment into a cement mixer represents the tumbler, but I will credit that the cement truck also duplicates the shipping random frequency stuff on top of the tumbler action. There is a difference and you certainly do not need to take my word for that. snuffy- "ANY type of powder is tough stuff. It resembles a plastic, it's hard and dense. It also just happens to have a lubricant applied to it, graphite." Hard and dense kinda like glass ? Graphite needs water vapor to be a lubricant, which makes it corrosive in some environments. Without the water vapor it is abrasive. Keep your powder dry, snuffy. snuffy- "Nobody is going to introduce an abrasive into a powder charge. It would NOT be good for the barrels." If there is no abrasive action going on in barrels, why is it that they wear ? snuffy- "It's pretty obvious you don't understand how a primer is constructed." I do not know how the motherboard on my computer is constructed either. Neither my comment nor yours is useful to the discussion. But thank you for confirming that a primer is constrained by the cup, not contained by it. snuffy- " There will be NO change to the primer from tumbling." Open ended and definitive statements are easy to challenge. Snuffy, try this. Take the media out of your tumbler. Empty a brick (1000) of fresh primers in the tumbler. Turn it on. The only question now is how much time will it take to prove to yourself your statement should be re-phrased. Humor Break: Brian Pfleuger- "Of course, these scientists are the same people that won't accept that surgical sterilization works on deer unless the animals are tracked to prove that they don't have babies." Actually just the opposite occurred in Jurassic Park. The scientists created all female dinosaurs to be sure they don't have babies. In the movie the statement of "Nature will find a way" was the classic line to refute the scientists. Brian Pfleuger- "Repeated test with various powders have consistently shown that there is no effect." Repeated tests are not the same thing as repeatable tests. Repeated tests are fun to talk about but they neither show nor prove anything. I am wrapping up my posting in this thread. Thanks guys, I really enjoyed this but this level of effort is over cause I am too lazy to continue it. I will leave all of you with an example of a repeatable test. First, pick any forum you want that has debate-able issues cropping up on a regular basis. Jump in without taking sides, do your best to propose a definitive solution, and just watch. My tests so far lead me to conclude that the debate on these issues is far preferable to solving them. If you really do propose something that might work, your neutrality is ignored. How dare you endanger our favorite BS topics. Try it, it's fun.