I think I just saw the problem. My grammer was misleading. I corrected it in the above quotes for clarification.gunny50 wrote:What about the Italian compensator bullet?whiterussian1974 wrote:Highspeed photography would be a good tool... I used a water filled transparent tube w different colored glitter b/t the 1st 4 baffles. Rented a high framerate digital camera and observed how the glitter traveled when 150psi airhose injected a dynamic impulse...But for bullet base profiles, stagnant open air is needed. Like inside a shop, shooting through an open window. The smoke gas plume will be highly visible and not be disturbed by wind.Dr.K wrote:Say I or someone in my situation did decide to try different bases on projectiles or ANY RADICAL DESIGN Feature.....
How in blue blazes would I know if it worked or not? I have no testing equipment, (except) my own god given equipment.
Perhaps Gunny thought that I meant that a stagnant, open air base was needed. I actually meant that for a test environment. Not a hollow base bullet.
I still think that if any "experimental base" showed promise, it would be the compound S-curve.
But would really like Shockbottle to post links to Academic Paper, Patents, etc.
If Pelton, Bull, or any other Inventor has published Theory or Data, then there is no reason to withhold it.
What POSSIBLE client/customer would care or even know if Public Info was posted on a Public Forum? As Shockbottle himself said, "Patents are a way of proving Bonafides." (Paraphrase)
My "Blue Bells" can't take anymore. Either Put-out or Shut-it. No more teasing.
I'm no masochist.