|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:30:56 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:52:34 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:20:10 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:41:14 -0800, "Mark J." wrote: On 12/15/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:39:19 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/15/2018 3:04 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Emanuel, with all due respect, you should spend the winter reading a physics book or two. Or three. Skip the parts on electricity, atomic physics, etc. Concentrate on forces, motion, work, energy etc. - the parts that apply to bicycles. [...] Blah blah blah, you have told me this at least a dozen times by now. Probably because it is easier to be didactic/demeaning than to actually answer the questions. more. I left school without having slept through even one physics class. My reference work here is a 1955 high school textbook for $1 (9 Kr). I don't know all of even that, but I understand the world well enough to know that this headline last week: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...soon-2022.html was completely ridiculous. The chamber pressures are in the same range, but not power, not even within a magnitude*! Power is work over time. Without some grasp of the actual world, you would not have laughed aloud when reading the headline, etc. *A typical 120mm tank round is 7.5 kilos of depleted uranium moving at 1700 m/s. The new 6.8 rifle typically moves 7.5 grams at 850 m/s. That's why you need basic physics. BTW, here's an interesting case that crossed my desk: https://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...killed-in-tank https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...explosion.html Interesting object lesson for re-loaders. I'm representing a party on a collateral insurance issue. I've represented a couple big gun makers in over-pressure cases. Reloads. Too much powder or the wrong powder can blow-up guns large and small. -- Jay Beattie. One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been "de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order". The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A.F., means that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch. cheers, John B. I read the Preston put in 8oz. more powder than was the recommended load and was told that if he fired that cartridge it'd blow up the gun. Preston was also persuaded to take out more insurance due to that overloaded cartridge. Yes, I read that part too. I used to hand load for varmint rifles and of course we were always trying for that little extra speed, but we were also careful to inspect cartridge cases for signs of over pressure. I simply can't imagine anyone just shoveling in 8 ounces of extra powder. Particularly after someone "in the business" told not to. That extra 8 ounces blew my mind also. When I was maybe 30, I was helping my dad, a long-time pistol round reloader, mostly out of [my] curiosity. There was another seasoned reloader there also. I measured one shell's worth of powder and was surprised how excited they both got, exhorting me to avoid compressing or tamping down the powder ?while scooping? (details and wording are foggy years later). I was warned that any hint of ?compression? in the powder could result in a overload that could destroy a pistol. Who'd think you'd need to be careful working with explosives? Mark J. True. Gun powders are manufactured as grains and any packing or tamping down would allow more grains in the same space (measure). More explosive in the same place equals higher pressures. People that are loading right up to the maximum will weigh the powder rather then use a mechanical measure. cheers, John B. John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. The is utter bull****. Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). There is an old saying, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and prove it" that apparently you never heard. Or if you did you ignored it. cheers, John B. John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way. Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel. You stated that "John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. " I refuted that saying that "Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). Now you demolish your own argument by saying "John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way." Or in more simple terms one day you say one thing and the next day you say the opposite. (unless you think that WW I was fought in 1400) But your last statement that "Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel" is a bit confusing. What are you trying to say? that there are tiny little targets down inside the gun barrel that don't count? Tom, as I have previously advised you "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt". cheers, John B. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 3:33:27 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:30:56 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:52:34 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:20:10 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:41:14 -0800, "Mark J." wrote: On 12/15/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:39:19 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/15/2018 3:04 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Emanuel, with all due respect, you should spend the winter reading a physics book or two. Or three. Skip the parts on electricity, atomic physics, etc. Concentrate on forces, motion, work, energy etc. - the parts that apply to bicycles. [...] Blah blah blah, you have told me this at least a dozen times by now. Probably because it is easier to be didactic/demeaning than to actually answer the questions. more. I left school without having slept through even one physics class. My reference work here is a 1955 high school textbook for $1 (9 Kr). I don't know all of even that, but I understand the world well enough to know that this headline last week: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...soon-2022.html was completely ridiculous. The chamber pressures are in the same range, but not power, not even within a magnitude*! Power is work over time. Without some grasp of the actual world, you would not have laughed aloud when reading the headline, etc. *A typical 120mm tank round is 7.5 kilos of depleted uranium moving at 1700 m/s. The new 6.8 rifle typically moves 7.5 grams at 850 m/s. That's why you need basic physics. BTW, here's an interesting case that crossed my desk: https://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...killed-in-tank https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...explosion.html Interesting object lesson for re-loaders. I'm representing a party on a collateral insurance issue. I've represented a couple big gun makers in over-pressure cases. Reloads. Too much powder or the wrong powder can blow-up guns large and small. -- Jay Beattie. One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been "de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order". The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A.F., means that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch. cheers, John B. I read the Preston put in 8oz. more powder than was the recommended load and was told that if he fired that cartridge it'd blow up the gun.. Preston was also persuaded to take out more insurance due to that overloaded cartridge. Yes, I read that part too. I used to hand load for varmint rifles and of course we were always trying for that little extra speed, but we were also careful to inspect cartridge cases for signs of over pressure. I simply can't imagine anyone just shoveling in 8 ounces of extra powder. Particularly after someone "in the business" told not to. That extra 8 ounces blew my mind also. When I was maybe 30, I was helping my dad, a long-time pistol round reloader, mostly out of [my] curiosity. There was another seasoned reloader there also. I measured one shell's worth of powder and was surprised how excited they both got, exhorting me to avoid compressing or tamping down the powder ?while scooping? (details and wording are foggy years later). I was warned that any hint of ?compression? in the powder could result in a overload that could destroy a pistol. Who'd think you'd need to be careful working with explosives? Mark J. True. Gun powders are manufactured as grains and any packing or tamping down would allow more grains in the same space (measure). More explosive in the same place equals higher pressures. People that are loading right up to the maximum will weigh the powder rather then use a mechanical measure. cheers, John B. John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. The is utter bull****. Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). There is an old saying, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and prove it" that apparently you never heard. Or if you did you ignored it. cheers, John B. John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way. Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel. You stated that "John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. " I refuted that saying that "Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). Now you demolish your own argument by saying "John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way." Or in more simple terms one day you say one thing and the next day you say the opposite. (unless you think that WW I was fought in 1400) But your last statement that "Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel" is a bit confusing. What are you trying to say? that there are tiny little targets down inside the gun barrel that don't count? Tom, as I have previously advised you "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt". cheers, John B. Most of those so-called "supersonic" loads were on balls. These cannot hold that speed for more than tens of yards and so really can't be considered as supersonic. This is why the aerodynamic bullet shape was designed. Many of these "supersonic" rounds were cannon shells firing large balls. Since we did not have high test steel that could stand really heavy loads until almost WW II. Rifle barrels could be exploded by overloads until then. Even an old Winchester model 94 could be exploded and I have seen them do so.. Now the muzzle velocity of that rifle was twice the speed of sound but that was the max loads. And I consider 1894 close to WW I. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:41:09 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 3:33:27 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:30:56 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:52:34 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:20:10 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:41:14 -0800, "Mark J." wrote: On 12/15/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:39:19 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/15/2018 3:04 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Emanuel, with all due respect, you should spend the winter reading a physics book or two. Or three. Skip the parts on electricity, atomic physics, etc. Concentrate on forces, motion, work, energy etc. - the parts that apply to bicycles. [...] Blah blah blah, you have told me this at least a dozen times by now. Probably because it is easier to be didactic/demeaning than to actually answer the questions. more. I left school without having slept through even one physics class. My reference work here is a 1955 high school textbook for $1 (9 Kr). I don't know all of even that, but I understand the world well enough to know that this headline last week: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...soon-2022.html was completely ridiculous. The chamber pressures are in the same range, but not power, not even within a magnitude*! Power is work over time. Without some grasp of the actual world, you would not have laughed aloud when reading the headline, etc. *A typical 120mm tank round is 7.5 kilos of depleted uranium moving at 1700 m/s. The new 6.8 rifle typically moves 7.5 grams at 850 m/s. That's why you need basic physics. BTW, here's an interesting case that crossed my desk: https://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...killed-in-tank https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...explosion.html Interesting object lesson for re-loaders. I'm representing a party on a collateral insurance issue. I've represented a couple big gun makers in over-pressure cases. Reloads. Too much powder or the wrong powder can blow-up guns large and small. -- Jay Beattie. One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been "de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order". The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A.F., means that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch. cheers, John B. I read the Preston put in 8oz. more powder than was the recommended load and was told that if he fired that cartridge it'd blow up the gun. Preston was also persuaded to take out more insurance due to that overloaded cartridge. Yes, I read that part too. I used to hand load for varmint rifles and of course we were always trying for that little extra speed, but we were also careful to inspect cartridge cases for signs of over pressure. I simply can't imagine anyone just shoveling in 8 ounces of extra powder. Particularly after someone "in the business" told not to. That extra 8 ounces blew my mind also. When I was maybe 30, I was helping my dad, a long-time pistol round reloader, mostly out of [my] curiosity. There was another seasoned reloader there also. I measured one shell's worth of powder and was surprised how excited they both got, exhorting me to avoid compressing or tamping down the powder ?while scooping? (details and wording are foggy years later). I was warned that any hint of ?compression? in the powder could result in a overload that could destroy a pistol. Who'd think you'd need to be careful working with explosives? Mark J. True. Gun powders are manufactured as grains and any packing or tamping down would allow more grains in the same space (measure). More explosive in the same place equals higher pressures. People that are loading right up to the maximum will weigh the powder rather then use a mechanical measure. cheers, John B. John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. The is utter bull****. Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). There is an old saying, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and prove it" that apparently you never heard. Or if you did you ignored it. cheers, John B. John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way. Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel. You stated that "John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. " I refuted that saying that "Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). Now you demolish your own argument by saying "John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way." Or in more simple terms one day you say one thing and the next day you say the opposite. (unless you think that WW I was fought in 1400) But your last statement that "Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel" is a bit confusing. What are you trying to say? that there are tiny little targets down inside the gun barrel that don't count? Tom, as I have previously advised you "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt". cheers, John B. Most of those so-called "supersonic" loads were on balls. These cannot hold that speed for more than tens of yards and so really can't be considered as supersonic. This is why the aerodynamic bullet shape was designed. Interesting: See http://home.insightbb.com/~bspen/trajectories.html A .53 cal., 223 gr. round ball fired at 1800 ft/sec remains supersonic to about 100 yards. I agree that this is some tens of yards, but then, so is a mile. Many of these "supersonic" rounds were cannon shells firing large balls. Since we did not have high test steel that could stand really heavy loads until almost WW II. Rifle barrels could be exploded by overloads until then. Even an old Winchester model 94 could be exploded and I have seen them do so. Now the muzzle velocity of that rifle was twice the speed of sound but that was the max loads. And I consider 1894 close to WW I. I mentioned a list of some 33 rifle cartridges developed before WW I that were supersonic. As for blowing up. any weapon using an internal combusting propellant will explode given the right conditions. As for 1894 being "close to WW I" Well yes, if you believe that almost a quarter of a century is "close". I keep telling you that "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt" but you don't seem to listen. cheers, John B. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 3:51:17 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:41:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 3:33:27 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:30:56 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:52:34 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:20:10 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:41:14 -0800, "Mark J." wrote: On 12/15/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:39:19 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/15/2018 3:04 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Emanuel, with all due respect, you should spend the winter reading a physics book or two. Or three. Skip the parts on electricity, atomic physics, etc. Concentrate on forces, motion, work, energy etc. - the parts that apply to bicycles. [...] Blah blah blah, you have told me this at least a dozen times by now. Probably because it is easier to be didactic/demeaning than to actually answer the questions. more. I left school without having slept through even one physics class. My reference work here is a 1955 high school textbook for $1 (9 Kr). I don't know all of even that, but I understand the world well enough to know that this headline last week: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...soon-2022.html was completely ridiculous. The chamber pressures are in the same range, but not power, not even within a magnitude*! Power is work over time. Without some grasp of the actual world, you would not have laughed aloud when reading the headline, etc. *A typical 120mm tank round is 7.5 kilos of depleted uranium moving at 1700 m/s. The new 6.8 rifle typically moves 7.5 grams at 850 m/s. That's why you need basic physics. BTW, here's an interesting case that crossed my desk: https://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...killed-in-tank https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...explosion.html Interesting object lesson for re-loaders. I'm representing a party on a collateral insurance issue. I've represented a couple big gun makers in over-pressure cases. Reloads. Too much powder or the wrong powder can blow-up guns large and small. -- Jay Beattie. One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been "de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order". The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A.F., means that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch. cheers, John B. I read the Preston put in 8oz. more powder than was the recommended load and was told that if he fired that cartridge it'd blow up the gun. Preston was also persuaded to take out more insurance due to that overloaded cartridge. Yes, I read that part too. I used to hand load for varmint rifles and of course we were always trying for that little extra speed, but we were also careful to inspect cartridge cases for signs of over pressure. I simply can't imagine anyone just shoveling in 8 ounces of extra powder. Particularly after someone "in the business" told not to. That extra 8 ounces blew my mind also. When I was maybe 30, I was helping my dad, a long-time pistol round reloader, mostly out of [my] curiosity. There was another seasoned reloader there also. I measured one shell's worth of powder and was surprised how excited they both got, exhorting me to avoid compressing or tamping down the powder ?while scooping? (details and wording are foggy years later). I was warned that any hint of ?compression? in the powder could result in a overload that could destroy a pistol. Who'd think you'd need to be careful working with explosives? Mark J. True. Gun powders are manufactured as grains and any packing or tamping down would allow more grains in the same space (measure).. More explosive in the same place equals higher pressures. People that are loading right up to the maximum will weigh the powder rather then use a mechanical measure. cheers, John B. John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. The is utter bull****. Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). There is an old saying, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and prove it" that apparently you never heard. Or if you did you ignored it. cheers, John B. John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way. Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel. You stated that "John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. " I refuted that saying that "Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). Now you demolish your own argument by saying "John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way." Or in more simple terms one day you say one thing and the next day you say the opposite. (unless you think that WW I was fought in 1400) But your last statement that "Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel" is a bit confusing. What are you trying to say? that there are tiny little targets down inside the gun barrel that don't count? Tom, as I have previously advised you "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt". cheers, John B. Most of those so-called "supersonic" loads were on balls. These cannot hold that speed for more than tens of yards and so really can't be considered as supersonic. This is why the aerodynamic bullet shape was designed. Interesting: See http://home.insightbb.com/~bspen/trajectories.html A .53 cal., 223 gr. round ball fired at 1800 ft/sec remains supersonic to about 100 yards. I agree that this is some tens of yards, but then, so is a mile. Many of these "supersonic" rounds were cannon shells firing large balls. Since we did not have high test steel that could stand really heavy loads until almost WW II. Rifle barrels could be exploded by overloads until then.. Even an old Winchester model 94 could be exploded and I have seen them do so. Now the muzzle velocity of that rifle was twice the speed of sound but that was the max loads. And I consider 1894 close to WW I. I mentioned a list of some 33 rifle cartridges developed before WW I that were supersonic. As for blowing up. any weapon using an internal combusting propellant will explode given the right conditions. As for 1894 being "close to WW I" Well yes, if you believe that almost a quarter of a century is "close". I keep telling you that "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt" but you don't seem to listen. cheers, John B. And I have actually shot guns in anger. Your idea of a gun is that dangerous thing that should be taken away from others. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 15:34:16 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 3:51:17 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:41:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 3:33:27 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:30:56 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:52:34 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:20:10 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:41:14 -0800, "Mark J." wrote: On 12/15/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:39:19 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/15/2018 3:04 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Emanuel, with all due respect, you should spend the winter reading a physics book or two. Or three. Skip the parts on electricity, atomic physics, etc. Concentrate on forces, motion, work, energy etc. - the parts that apply to bicycles. [...] Blah blah blah, you have told me this at least a dozen times by now. Probably because it is easier to be didactic/demeaning than to actually answer the questions. more. I left school without having slept through even one physics class. My reference work here is a 1955 high school textbook for $1 (9 Kr). I don't know all of even that, but I understand the world well enough to know that this headline last week: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...soon-2022.html was completely ridiculous. The chamber pressures are in the same range, but not power, not even within a magnitude*! Power is work over time. Without some grasp of the actual world, you would not have laughed aloud when reading the headline, etc. *A typical 120mm tank round is 7.5 kilos of depleted uranium moving at 1700 m/s. The new 6.8 rifle typically moves 7.5 grams at 850 m/s. That's why you need basic physics. BTW, here's an interesting case that crossed my desk: https://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...killed-in-tank https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...explosion.html Interesting object lesson for re-loaders. I'm representing a party on a collateral insurance issue. I've represented a couple big gun makers in over-pressure cases. Reloads. Too much powder or the wrong powder can blow-up guns large and small. -- Jay Beattie. One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been "de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order". The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A.F., means that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch. cheers, John B. I read the Preston put in 8oz. more powder than was the recommended load and was told that if he fired that cartridge it'd blow up the gun. Preston was also persuaded to take out more insurance due to that overloaded cartridge. Yes, I read that part too. I used to hand load for varmint rifles and of course we were always trying for that little extra speed, but we were also careful to inspect cartridge cases for signs of over pressure. I simply can't imagine anyone just shoveling in 8 ounces of extra powder. Particularly after someone "in the business" told not to. That extra 8 ounces blew my mind also. When I was maybe 30, I was helping my dad, a long-time pistol round reloader, mostly out of [my] curiosity. There was another seasoned reloader there also. I measured one shell's worth of powder and was surprised how excited they both got, exhorting me to avoid compressing or tamping down the powder ?while scooping? (details and wording are foggy years later). I was warned that any hint of ?compression? in the powder could result in a overload that could destroy a pistol. Who'd think you'd need to be careful working with explosives? Mark J. True. Gun powders are manufactured as grains and any packing or tamping down would allow more grains in the same space (measure). More explosive in the same place equals higher pressures. People that are loading right up to the maximum will weigh the powder rather then use a mechanical measure. cheers, John B. John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. The is utter bull****. Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). There is an old saying, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and prove it" that apparently you never heard. Or if you did you ignored it. cheers, John B. John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way. Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel. You stated that "John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. " I refuted that saying that "Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). Now you demolish your own argument by saying "John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way." Or in more simple terms one day you say one thing and the next day you say the opposite. (unless you think that WW I was fought in 1400) But your last statement that "Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel" is a bit confusing. What are you trying to say? that there are tiny little targets down inside the gun barrel that don't count? Tom, as I have previously advised you "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt". cheers, John B. Most of those so-called "supersonic" loads were on balls. These cannot hold that speed for more than tens of yards and so really can't be considered as supersonic. This is why the aerodynamic bullet shape was designed. Interesting: See http://home.insightbb.com/~bspen/trajectories.html A .53 cal., 223 gr. round ball fired at 1800 ft/sec remains supersonic to about 100 yards. I agree that this is some tens of yards, but then, so is a mile. Many of these "supersonic" rounds were cannon shells firing large balls. Since we did not have high test steel that could stand really heavy loads until almost WW II. Rifle barrels could be exploded by overloads until then. Even an old Winchester model 94 could be exploded and I have seen them do so. Now the muzzle velocity of that rifle was twice the speed of sound but that was the max loads. And I consider 1894 close to WW I. I mentioned a list of some 33 rifle cartridges developed before WW I that were supersonic. As for blowing up. any weapon using an internal combusting propellant will explode given the right conditions. As for 1894 being "close to WW I" Well yes, if you believe that almost a quarter of a century is "close". I keep telling you that "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt" but you don't seem to listen. cheers, John B. And I have actually shot guns in anger. Your idea of a gun is that dangerous thing that should be taken away from others. The first firearm I owned was a Winchester .22 cal single shot rifle that I "earned" by sawing cordwood up into stove wood lengths every night after school for a month when I was 12 years old. And I built and owned guns until I left the U.S. to work overseas. I shot on both pistol and big bore teams during the 20 years I was in the A.F. I was a gunsmith for about 10 years and, at one time had the reputation of building the most accurate varmint rifles of any gunsmith in Shreveport, La. And I might add, that during the year and a half I spent in Vietnam I also fired at a human being. The Air Base I was stationed at was attacked and I fired an M-16 at some individuals who seemed to be trying to get across the fence. Things were, to say the least, a bit confused and I don't know that I hit anybody. So, once again the indomitable Tommy has opened his mouth and flaunted his ignorance when, had he kept it closed, some might have thought him wise... cheers, John B. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 4:46:56 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 15:34:16 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 3:51:17 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:41:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 3:33:27 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:30:56 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:52:34 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:20:10 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:41:14 -0800, "Mark J." wrote: On 12/15/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:39:19 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/15/2018 3:04 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Emanuel, with all due respect, you should spend the winter reading a physics book or two. Or three. Skip the parts on electricity, atomic physics, etc. Concentrate on forces, motion, work, energy etc. - the parts that apply to bicycles. [...] Blah blah blah, you have told me this at least a dozen times by now. Probably because it is easier to be didactic/demeaning than to actually answer the questions. more. I left school without having slept through even one physics class. My reference work here is a 1955 high school textbook for $1 (9 Kr). I don't know all of even that, but I understand the world well enough to know that this headline last week: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...soon-2022.html was completely ridiculous. The chamber pressures are in the same range, but not power, not even within a magnitude*! Power is work over time. Without some grasp of the actual world, you would not have laughed aloud when reading the headline, etc. *A typical 120mm tank round is 7.5 kilos of depleted uranium moving at 1700 m/s. The new 6.8 rifle typically moves 7.5 grams at 850 m/s. That's why you need basic physics. BTW, here's an interesting case that crossed my desk: https://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...killed-in-tank https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...explosion.html Interesting object lesson for re-loaders. I'm representing a party on a collateral insurance issue. I've represented a couple big gun makers in over-pressure cases. Reloads. Too much powder or the wrong powder can blow-up guns large and small. -- Jay Beattie. One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been "de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order". The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A..F., means that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch. cheers, John B. I read the Preston put in 8oz. more powder than was the recommended load and was told that if he fired that cartridge it'd blow up the gun. Preston was also persuaded to take out more insurance due to that overloaded cartridge. Yes, I read that part too. I used to hand load for varmint rifles and of course we were always trying for that little extra speed, but we were also careful to inspect cartridge cases for signs of over pressure. I simply can't imagine anyone just shoveling in 8 ounces of extra powder. Particularly after someone "in the business" told not to. That extra 8 ounces blew my mind also. When I was maybe 30, I was helping my dad, a long-time pistol round reloader, mostly out of [my] curiosity. There was another seasoned reloader there also. I measured one shell's worth of powder and was surprised how excited they both got, exhorting me to avoid compressing or tamping down the powder ?while scooping? (details and wording are foggy years later). I was warned that any hint of ?compression? in the powder could result in a overload that could destroy a pistol. Who'd think you'd need to be careful working with explosives? Mark J. True. Gun powders are manufactured as grains and any packing or tamping down would allow more grains in the same space (measure). More explosive in the same place equals higher pressures. People that are loading right up to the maximum will weigh the powder rather then use a mechanical measure. cheers, John B. John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. The is utter bull****. Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). There is an old saying, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and prove it" that apparently you never heard. Or if you did you ignored it. cheers, John B. John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way. Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel. You stated that "John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. " I refuted that saying that "Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). Now you demolish your own argument by saying "John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way." Or in more simple terms one day you say one thing and the next day you say the opposite. (unless you think that WW I was fought in 1400) But your last statement that "Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel" is a bit confusing. What are you trying to say? that there are tiny little targets down inside the gun barrel that don't count? Tom, as I have previously advised you "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt". cheers, John B. Most of those so-called "supersonic" loads were on balls. These cannot hold that speed for more than tens of yards and so really can't be considered as supersonic. This is why the aerodynamic bullet shape was designed. Interesting: See http://home.insightbb.com/~bspen/trajectories.html A .53 cal., 223 gr. round ball fired at 1800 ft/sec remains supersonic to about 100 yards. I agree that this is some tens of yards, but then, so is a mile. Many of these "supersonic" rounds were cannon shells firing large balls. Since we did not have high test steel that could stand really heavy loads until almost WW II. Rifle barrels could be exploded by overloads until then. Even an old Winchester model 94 could be exploded and I have seen them do so. Now the muzzle velocity of that rifle was twice the speed of sound but that was the max loads. And I consider 1894 close to WW I. I mentioned a list of some 33 rifle cartridges developed before WW I that were supersonic. As for blowing up. any weapon using an internal combusting propellant will explode given the right conditions. As for 1894 being "close to WW I" Well yes, if you believe that almost a quarter of a century is "close". I keep telling you that "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt" but you don't seem to listen. cheers, John B. And I have actually shot guns in anger. Your idea of a gun is that dangerous thing that should be taken away from others. The first firearm I owned was a Winchester .22 cal single shot rifle that I "earned" by sawing cordwood up into stove wood lengths every night after school for a month when I was 12 years old. And I built and owned guns until I left the U.S. to work overseas. I shot on both pistol and big bore teams during the 20 years I was in the A.F. I was a gunsmith for about 10 years and, at one time had the reputation of building the most accurate varmint rifles of any gunsmith in Shreveport, La. And I might add, that during the year and a half I spent in Vietnam I also fired at a human being. The Air Base I was stationed at was attacked and I fired an M-16 at some individuals who seemed to be trying to get across the fence. Things were, to say the least, a bit confused and I don't know that I hit anybody. So, once again the indomitable Tommy has opened his mouth and flaunted his ignorance when, had he kept it closed, some might have thought him wise... cheers, John B. And there yet you are hiding in Thailand. You conveyed to us at least the impression that you are or were a construction engineer. And yet you know absolutely nothing about testing procedures and how they are conducted or why. That gives me a pretty good idea that you were never any sort of construction engineer unless you consider telling other people what to carry as engineering. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 14:32:47 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 4:46:56 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 15:34:16 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 3:51:17 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:41:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 3:33:27 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:30:56 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:52:34 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:20:10 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:41:14 -0800, "Mark J." wrote: On 12/15/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:39:19 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/15/2018 3:04 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Emanuel, with all due respect, you should spend the winter reading a physics book or two. Or three. Skip the parts on electricity, atomic physics, etc. Concentrate on forces, motion, work, energy etc. - the parts that apply to bicycles. [...] Blah blah blah, you have told me this at least a dozen times by now. Probably because it is easier to be didactic/demeaning than to actually answer the questions. more. I left school without having slept through even one physics class. My reference work here is a 1955 high school textbook for $1 (9 Kr). I don't know all of even that, but I understand the world well enough to know that this headline last week: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...soon-2022.html was completely ridiculous. The chamber pressures are in the same range, but not power, not even within a magnitude*! Power is work over time. Without some grasp of the actual world, you would not have laughed aloud when reading the headline, etc. *A typical 120mm tank round is 7.5 kilos of depleted uranium moving at 1700 m/s. The new 6.8 rifle typically moves 7.5 grams at 850 m/s. That's why you need basic physics. BTW, here's an interesting case that crossed my desk: https://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...killed-in-tank https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...explosion.html Interesting object lesson for re-loaders. I'm representing a party on a collateral insurance issue. I've represented a couple big gun makers in over-pressure cases. Reloads. Too much powder or the wrong powder can blow-up guns large and small. -- Jay Beattie. One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been "de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order". The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A.F., means that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch. cheers, John B. I read the Preston put in 8oz. more powder than was the recommended load and was told that if he fired that cartridge it'd blow up the gun. Preston was also persuaded to take out more insurance due to that overloaded cartridge. Yes, I read that part too. I used to hand load for varmint rifles and of course we were always trying for that little extra speed, but we were also careful to inspect cartridge cases for signs of over pressure. I simply can't imagine anyone just shoveling in 8 ounces of extra powder. Particularly after someone "in the business" told not to. That extra 8 ounces blew my mind also. When I was maybe 30, I was helping my dad, a long-time pistol round reloader, mostly out of [my] curiosity. There was another seasoned reloader there also. I measured one shell's worth of powder and was surprised how excited they both got, exhorting me to avoid compressing or tamping down the powder ?while scooping? (details and wording are foggy years later). I was warned that any hint of ?compression? in the powder could result in a overload that could destroy a pistol. Who'd think you'd need to be careful working with explosives? Mark J. True. Gun powders are manufactured as grains and any packing or tamping down would allow more grains in the same space (measure). More explosive in the same place equals higher pressures. People that are loading right up to the maximum will weigh the powder rather then use a mechanical measure. cheers, John B. John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. The is utter bull****. Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). There is an old saying, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and prove it" that apparently you never heard. Or if you did you ignored it. cheers, John B. John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way. Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel. You stated that "John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. " I refuted that saying that "Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). Now you demolish your own argument by saying "John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way." Or in more simple terms one day you say one thing and the next day you say the opposite. (unless you think that WW I was fought in 1400) But your last statement that "Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel" is a bit confusing. What are you trying to say? that there are tiny little targets down inside the gun barrel that don't count? Tom, as I have previously advised you "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt". cheers, John B. Most of those so-called "supersonic" loads were on balls. These cannot hold that speed for more than tens of yards and so really can't be considered as supersonic. This is why the aerodynamic bullet shape was designed. Interesting: See http://home.insightbb.com/~bspen/trajectories.html A .53 cal., 223 gr. round ball fired at 1800 ft/sec remains supersonic to about 100 yards. I agree that this is some tens of yards, but then, so is a mile. Many of these "supersonic" rounds were cannon shells firing large balls. Since we did not have high test steel that could stand really heavy loads until almost WW II. Rifle barrels could be exploded by overloads until then. Even an old Winchester model 94 could be exploded and I have seen them do so. Now the muzzle velocity of that rifle was twice the speed of sound but that was the max loads. And I consider 1894 close to WW I. I mentioned a list of some 33 rifle cartridges developed before WW I that were supersonic. As for blowing up. any weapon using an internal combusting propellant will explode given the right conditions. As for 1894 being "close to WW I" Well yes, if you believe that almost a quarter of a century is "close". I keep telling you that "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt" but you don't seem to listen. cheers, John B. And I have actually shot guns in anger. Your idea of a gun is that dangerous thing that should be taken away from others. The first firearm I owned was a Winchester .22 cal single shot rifle that I "earned" by sawing cordwood up into stove wood lengths every night after school for a month when I was 12 years old. And I built and owned guns until I left the U.S. to work overseas. I shot on both pistol and big bore teams during the 20 years I was in the A.F. I was a gunsmith for about 10 years and, at one time had the reputation of building the most accurate varmint rifles of any gunsmith in Shreveport, La. And I might add, that during the year and a half I spent in Vietnam I also fired at a human being. The Air Base I was stationed at was attacked and I fired an M-16 at some individuals who seemed to be trying to get across the fence. Things were, to say the least, a bit confused and I don't know that I hit anybody. So, once again the indomitable Tommy has opened his mouth and flaunted his ignorance when, had he kept it closed, some might have thought him wise... cheers, John B. And there yet you are hiding in Thailand. Hiding? Quite the contrary, I have publicly stated many, many, times that I reside in Thailand. You conveyed to us at least the impression that you are or were a construction engineer. And yet you know absolutely nothing about testing procedures and how they are conducted or why. That gives me a pretty good idea that you were never any sort of construction engineer unless you consider telling other people what to carry as engineering. I hate to confuse you with facts but I have never, I repeat NEVER, seen a construction engineer do any testing, nor have I ever seen a construction contract that demanded testing. And, as I have said, I worked on contracts for just about every international oil company that was active in Indonesia. And, this is not to say that the oil companies aren't interested in quality as, particularly in off-ashore work they even specify the paint used, in some cases by name, and the thickness of each layer. Note that to provide you with complete information the "testing" I mentioned above does not include the testing of all welders for competency, which is a normal part of all steel fabrication projects. Tom, I keep telling you that "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"... But you just don't listen. cheers, John B. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
casette shifting, again
On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:18:31 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 14:32:47 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 4:46:56 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 15:34:16 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 3:51:17 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 11:41:09 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 3:33:27 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 10:30:56 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 3:52:34 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:20:10 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 6:16:15 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 15:41:14 -0800, "Mark J." wrote: On 12/15/2018 9:58 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 21:39:19 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 10:43:29 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:20:42 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 1:59:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 12/15/2018 3:04 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: Emanuel, with all due respect, you should spend the winter reading a physics book or two. Or three. Skip the parts on electricity, atomic physics, etc. Concentrate on forces, motion, work, energy etc. - the parts that apply to bicycles. [...] Blah blah blah, you have told me this at least a dozen times by now. Probably because it is easier to be didactic/demeaning than to actually answer the questions. more. I left school without having slept through even one physics class. My reference work here is a 1955 high school textbook for $1 (9 Kr). I don't know all of even that, but I understand the world well enough to know that this headline last week: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...soon-2022.html was completely ridiculous. The chamber pressures are in the same range, but not power, not even within a magnitude*! Power is work over time. Without some grasp of the actual world, you would not have laughed aloud when reading the headline, etc. *A typical 120mm tank round is 7.5 kilos of depleted uranium moving at 1700 m/s. The new 6.8 rifle typically moves 7.5 grams at 850 m/s. That's why you need basic physics.. BTW, here's an interesting case that crossed my desk: https://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...killed-in-tank https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...explosion.html Interesting object lesson for re-loaders. I'm representing a party on a collateral insurance issue. I've represented a couple big gun makers in over-pressure cases. Reloads. Too much powder or the wrong powder can blow-up guns large and small.. -- Jay Beattie. One of the things I notices in the reference was that the gun had been "de-militarized" and that "was restored by Preston to working order". The term "de-militarized", at least as used by the U.S.A.F., means that the weapon is modified to a point that it cannot be fired, and cannot be repaired. In small arms usually by cutting the receiver and barrel into at least two parts, usually with a cutting torch. cheers, John B. I read the Preston put in 8oz. more powder than was the recommended load and was told that if he fired that cartridge it'd blow up the gun. Preston was also persuaded to take out more insurance due to that overloaded cartridge. Yes, I read that part too. I used to hand load for varmint rifles and of course we were always trying for that little extra speed, but we were also careful to inspect cartridge cases for signs of over pressure. I simply can't imagine anyone just shoveling in 8 ounces of extra powder. Particularly after someone "in the business" told not to. That extra 8 ounces blew my mind also. When I was maybe 30, I was helping my dad, a long-time pistol round reloader, mostly out of [my] curiosity. There was another seasoned reloader there also. I measured one shell's worth of powder and was surprised how excited they both got, exhorting me to avoid compressing or tamping down the powder ?while scooping? (details and wording are foggy years later). I was warned that any hint of ?compression? in the powder could result in a overload that could destroy a pistol. Who'd think you'd need to be careful working with explosives? Mark J. True. Gun powders are manufactured as grains and any packing or tamping down would allow more grains in the same space (measure). More explosive in the same place equals higher pressures. People that are loading right up to the maximum will weigh the powder rather then use a mechanical measure. cheers, John B. John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. The is utter bull****. Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). There is an old saying, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool then to open one's mouth and prove it" that apparently you never heard. Or if you did you ignored it. cheers, John B. John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way. Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel. You stated that "John - it wasn't until around WW I that bullets became supersonic. " I refuted that saying that "Between 1867 and 1900 there were at least 33 cartridges developed and marketed that were supersonic (speed of sound = 1125 ft/sec). Now you demolish your own argument by saying "John - even muzzle loaders had a muzzle velocity over the speed of sound. Muzzle velocity ends at the end of the muzzle. Cannons in the 1400's had muzzle velocities above the speed of sound but the targets use to watch these rounds coming and run out of the way." Or in more simple terms one day you say one thing and the next day you say the opposite. (unless you think that WW I was fought in 1400) But your last statement that "Supersonic only counts for a target beyond the end of the barrel" is a bit confusing. What are you trying to say? that there are tiny little targets down inside the gun barrel that don't count? Tom, as I have previously advised you "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt". cheers, John B. Most of those so-called "supersonic" loads were on balls. These cannot hold that speed for more than tens of yards and so really can't be considered as supersonic. This is why the aerodynamic bullet shape was designed. Interesting: See http://home.insightbb.com/~bspen/trajectories.html A .53 cal., 223 gr. round ball fired at 1800 ft/sec remains supersonic to about 100 yards. I agree that this is some tens of yards, but then, so is a mile. Many of these "supersonic" rounds were cannon shells firing large balls. Since we did not have high test steel that could stand really heavy loads until almost WW II. Rifle barrels could be exploded by overloads until then. Even an old Winchester model 94 could be exploded and I have seen them do so. Now the muzzle velocity of that rifle was twice the speed of sound but that was the max loads. And I consider 1894 close to WW I. I mentioned a list of some 33 rifle cartridges developed before WW I that were supersonic. As for blowing up. any weapon using an internal combusting propellant will explode given the right conditions. As for 1894 being "close to WW I" Well yes, if you believe that almost a quarter of a century is "close". I keep telling you that "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt" but you don't seem to listen. cheers, John B. And I have actually shot guns in anger. Your idea of a gun is that dangerous thing that should be taken away from others. The first firearm I owned was a Winchester .22 cal single shot rifle that I "earned" by sawing cordwood up into stove wood lengths every night after school for a month when I was 12 years old. And I built and owned guns until I left the U.S. to work overseas. I shot on both pistol and big bore teams during the 20 years I was in the A.F. I was a gunsmith for about 10 years and, at one time had the reputation of building the most accurate varmint rifles of any gunsmith in Shreveport, La. And I might add, that during the year and a half I spent in Vietnam I also fired at a human being. The Air Base I was stationed at was attacked and I fired an M-16 at some individuals who seemed to be trying to get across the fence. Things were, to say the least, a bit confused and I don't know that I hit anybody. So, once again the indomitable Tommy has opened his mouth and flaunted his ignorance when, had he kept it closed, some might have thought him wise... cheers, John B. And there yet you are hiding in Thailand. Hiding? Quite the contrary, I have publicly stated many, many, times that I reside in Thailand. You conveyed to us at least the impression that you are or were a construction engineer. And yet you know absolutely nothing about testing procedures and how they are conducted or why. That gives me a pretty good idea that you were never any sort of construction engineer unless you consider telling other people what to carry as engineering. I hate to confuse you with facts but I have never, I repeat NEVER, seen a construction engineer do any testing, nor have I ever seen a construction contract that demanded testing. And, as I have said, I worked on contracts for just about every international oil company that was active in Indonesia. And, this is not to say that the oil companies aren't interested in quality as, particularly in off-ashore work they even specify the paint used, in some cases by name, and the thickness of each layer. Note that to provide you with complete information the "testing" I mentioned above does not include the testing of all welders for competency, which is a normal part of all steel fabrication projects. Tom, I keep telling you that "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"... But you just don't listen. cheers, John B. Hey stupid - that was my point. You haven't even a CLUE about structural testing. You're so stupid you think that each component that goes into any structure has to be tested to failure. Whereas among the cognoscenti we are aware the things are tested to destruction for any sort of component once and all of that information is listed so that an engineer knows what to expect. Some moron which you can't even rise to the level of designed the Oakland bay bridge knowing what the strength of each component was supposed to be. And every one of them failed because the steel was substandard. But some idiotic fool like you doesn't know that. That is the SAME with bicycle frames dolt - you test enough of them to have a good idea of the strength and failure rate of a type of construction. You really are a drooling idiot that hasn't made one single comment anywhere on any of these strings that is anything other than a demonstration of how little you know. Tell us again of how people in an aircraft at altitude don't die of fire. Moron. We all realize you think that SMOKE appears magically. Or that the accompanying CO is only part and parcel of fire that doesn't exist. And I love your lead-acid battery fires. You are even too stupid to know that lead-acid batteries don't burn. Even the corrosion that can appear about the connections doesn't burn. I suggest you simply stop talking since every word out of your mouth is stupid and senseless. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
casette shifting | Emanuel Berg[_3_] | Techniques | 23 | November 6th 18 11:09 PM |
Friction shifting on a 9 speed cassette? Ease of shifting? Mounting? | [email protected] | Techniques | 5 | October 11th 07 04:02 AM |
Kyserium Casette Hubs | Tom | Techniques | 2 | June 28th 05 10:59 PM |
SS question - casette destruction | DaveB | Australia | 35 | April 4th 05 04:23 PM |
wtb: campy 8-spd casette | rsilver51 | Marketplace | 2 | February 1st 05 10:31 PM |