Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 85

Thread: Handy tables and charts.

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Flintshire
    Posts
    131
    Im not easily impressed normally but I have to admit it, im impressed with the technological knowlege, mathmatical ability, programming skills and general level of intelligence demonstrated by some on this forum.
    With a bit of encouragement and if pointed in the right direction I believe that they could actually make something of themselves and be successful in life.

    No Seriously. These are useful tools. Thanks guys.
    Shooting is a sport not a crime.

    http://topshot.fotopic.net/

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Derby
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by snock View Post
    Thanks,
    Excellent spreadsheet. I added another tab to build a database for my rifle. I'm shooting a Co2 rifle (first time with Co2). The spreadsheet has been invaluable to track performance vs the pressure changes as I use the gas, or prove/ disprove what I've read about Co2.

    I've got the fps/ ft/lbs/ joules (energy) logged for different pellet gr weight. Next job for me is to make something to measure the pellet energy at the poi 20yd - 40yd.

    Now my of knowledge of physics ends and my experimental mind starts starts. 1 lb weight / 12 inch pendulum, a pencil to describe an arc.
    "If I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I said" - Alan Greenspan.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tipi Valley Nr.Llandilo
    Posts
    1,089
    Is there some place to put in the calibre of the pellet
    I AM NOT A NUMBER ! THE PRISONER

    http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133002

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Derby
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by deadeye dick View Post
    Is there some place to put in the calibre of the pellet
    The pellet weight and the fps are the variables. The calibre isn't necessary. The calc. between the grain and the speed gives you the info regardless of calibre. Its good for .177, .22 and others. Same maths.
    "If I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I said" - Alan Greenspan.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tipi Valley Nr.Llandilo
    Posts
    1,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bee View Post
    The pellet weight and the fps are the variables. The calibre isn't necessary. The calc. between the grain and the speed gives you the info regardless of calibre. Its good for .177, .22 and others. Same maths.
    Cheers for clearing that up
    I AM NOT A NUMBER ! THE PRISONER

    http://www.bushcraftuk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133002

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in sunny Spain
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by snock View Post
    He created this spreadsheet so that anyone can input the appropriate data to find out how many fills per scuba tank they'd get from their kit.

    How many fills.
    That’s a reasonable first guess but a little naïve. It assumes that air is infinitely compressible and behaves as an Ideal Gas . Unfortunately, that is not the case. Consequently, the model will slightly underestimate the number of fills if the bottle pressure is less than ~232 Bar and progressively overestimate if it is greater.

    e.g.,

    ‘Calibrating’ the spreadsheet with bottle volume=6 Litre, Bottle Pressure=232 Bar, Rifle Fill Pressure = 200 Bar, Rifle Bottle Volume=200 cc (AA S410 Standard), ‘Empty’ Pressure = 120 Bar and ‘Standard’ hose type (10 cc) gives an estimated 10 fills. Changing the only Bottle Pressure to 300 Bar suggests 33 Fills.

    Entering the same data into FillCalc (which has the Van de Waal corrections applied) yields 10 fills and 24 Fills @ 232 Bar and 300 Bar respectively.

    I guess that most folk use 232 Bar bottles anyway (so the increasing discrepancy above 232 Bar is fairly academic) but please be aware that, if you’re considering a 300 Bar set-up, you’ll get considerably fewer fills than this spreadsheet suggests.

    ATB
    Dave
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Aylesbury
    Posts
    60,301
    Naturally you're going to suggest Chairgun is more accurate, Dave (), but as I'm not so inclined to trawl through volumes of physics books to discover which table is more accurate, I'll let the creator of the table speak for it.


    Join the Free Speech Union
    ''All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to glaze over and resume scrolling''.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in sunny Spain
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by snock View Post
    Naturally you're going to suggest Chairgun is more accurate, Dave (),
    Sorry, I tried not to make it read like that. An earlier version of FillCalc used the same model as the spreadsheet and – although I was vaguely aware of air’s compressibility issues – I didn’t consider them particularly relevant (but then thermodynamics was never really my thing ). However, as demonstrated, the differences above ~240 Bar are too big to be ignored. ….

    Quote Originally Posted by snock View Post
    . . . but as I'm not so inclined to trawl through volumes of physics books to discover which table is more accurate, I'll let the creator of the table speak for it.
    No need for any books (or trawling through same), just Google ‘Van der Waal’, it’s there for all to see. Consider the post as a simple warning that the number of fills from 300 Bar may be found to be misleadingly high.
    Having said all that, the Van der Waal model is a pig to work with (assuming the linear relationship is much simpler) and the differences are pretty much irrelevant under the magical ~232 Bar level.

    HTH
    Dave

    [Edit] By the way, did you ever wonder why 232 Bar is/was a popular working pressure for a pressure vessel? Why 232 Bar; why not 225 Bar or even 250 Bar? It turns out that 232 Bar is the pressure (for air) where the Ideal Gas approximation holds true. At pressures below that you get slightly more than you expected; at over 232 Bar you progressively get a lot less; the compressibility ensures that the Law of Diminishing Returns takes hold with a vengeance.
    Last edited by Harry's Lad; 06-04-2009 at 09:47 PM.
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Tremar
    Posts
    14,239
    Being the original author, let me say that I am and was at the time aware that the maths were simplified and ignored the Van Der Waal issue, rather like the earlier versions of Chairgun and other ballistic software had simplified approaches to residual energy and trajectory.

    Number of Fills was released at a time when money was being raised by members of this forum to support breast cancer charities, and the spreadsheet was given away on the basis that recipients who found it useful would make an appropriate donation. I have the papers on file somewhere, as I dare say the posts and threads from that era have long gone. We made about £170 for breast cancer charity on the first evening; I recall sending about 75 emails with a copy of the spreadsheet attached, before I went to bed at 2am.

    There seems to be little point in re-releasing number-of-fills as pretty well everyone these days will choose a 300 bar bottle over a 232 so long as they can get it refilled relatively easily. The cost of getting to the filling shop is for many the largest single factor, so it makes sense to buy the biggest and highest pressure bottle you can manhandle.

    If I were to update it, I would not bother with a true Van Der Waal correction, but simply use the present elementary maths substituting an arbitrary value of something like 285 bar whenever the user thought they were selecting 300 bar. That would give a closer approximation. In any event the accuracy is affected by whatever allowance is made for dead volume in the hose and gauge, and experience has shown me that some decant sets are far more wasteful than others.

    The other factor to consider is that number-of-fills has a look-up table with the reservoir capacities for several popular rifles (and that's out of date now too.) Readers may think that getting the reservoir capacity from the manufacturer only requires a phone call. In practice one firm steadfastly refused to let me have the information declaring it was a trade secret. I ask you, how can it be a trade secret of any worth when firms such as Theoben specify the size of the buddy bottle?

    The example of the S410 with 200cc is actually incorrect as later information has shown this reservoir to be 216cc. The carbine and export models have also been amended.

    If I could move to the am-I-legal spreadsheet, I do commend this to all members especially in the light of current issues regarding rifles approaching the legal limit. This time the maths part does not rely on any science or engineering, it's purely a matter of statistics, more specially probability.

    An over-the-counter chronograph will have an accuracy of something like plus or minus 1 percent of reading. The owner will not know whether his chrono reads high, low, or spot on. The chrono used by the Home Office testing station will be a precision piece of kit and will have a calibration certificate, with a tolerance of something like 0.4% of reading.

    It would be possible for your domestic chrono to be at one end of its limit and the testing station chrono to be at the other end of its limit, a variation of 1.4%. Remember that the chrono measures velocity, but it is muzzle energy that is specified by law. As there is a square function from velocity to energy, 1.4% variation in velocity equals 1.96% variation in power.

    The maths part looks not only at the rifle's velocity but the consistency of that velocity. It is the case that a rifle that is inconsistent is more likely to throw a rogue high value at some time. That is why the spreadsheet can give you the surprising and maybe unwelcome answer that ten or even twenty shots close to the limit (but all under it) bring a risk of failing a Home Office test if the rifle is inconsistent. When it says, there is a 3 percent risk of failing a test, think of it this way. You and 32 friends line up to have your rifles tested, all supremely confident that your trials at home have kept you under the limit, albeit close to it. One of you will be disappointed to learn that you are in possession of a section 1 firearm, without a licence.

    Rich

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in sunny Spain
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    Being the original author, let me say that I am and was at the time aware that the maths were simplified and ignored the Van Der Waal issue, rather like the earlier versions of Chairgun and other ballistic software had simplified approaches to residual energy and trajectory.
    The first ChairGun version, as it evolved through several iterations, was an adequate model of airgun ballistics as used in the context of airgun usage at that particular time. ChairGun2 evolved from a different ballistic model that more accurately met different (and more challenging) criteria – mostly driven by the requirement of long-range shooting in Oz and the USA. In both cases, the software operated accurately within its stated restraints.
    That’s the difference; your spreadsheet is capable of giving results that, because of the known and ignored oversimplification, are erroneous. I was simply pointing out that, given the deficiencies of the simple model used, the 232 Bar + results may be seriously in error.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    There seems to be little point in re-releasing number-of-fills as pretty well everyone these days will choose a 300 bar bottle over a 232 so long as they can get it refilled relatively easily. The cost of getting to the filling shop is for many the largest single factor, so it makes sense to buy the biggest and highest pressure bottle you can manhandle.
    Perhaps that’s a good reason for re-doing/releasing the spreadsheet since it is the > 232 Bar predictions that are in error. The conjecture was, on acquiring a 300 Bar bottle on the basis or your spreadsheet, that the punter could be very disappointed in the number of fills realised.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    If I were to update it, I would not bother with a true Van Der Waal correction, but simply use the present elementary maths substituting an arbitrary value of something like 285 bar whenever the user thought they were selecting 300 bar. That would give a closer approximation.
    You could do that . . . or you could do it properly although writing an accurate working algorithm in VBA could be quite challenging.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    In any event the accuracy is affected by whatever allowance is made for dead volume in the hose and gauge, and experience has shown me that some decant sets are far more wasteful than others. The other factor to consider is that number-of-fills has a look-up table with the reservoir capacities for several popular rifles (and that's out of date now too.) Readers may think that getting the reservoir capacity from the manufacturer only requires a phone call. In practice one firm steadfastly refused to let me have the information declaring it was a trade secret. I ask you, how can it be a trade secret of any worth when firms such as Theoben specify the size of the buddy bottle? The example of the S410 with 200cc is actually incorrect as later information has shown this reservoir to be 216cc. The carbine and export models have also been amended.
    True. But then, we can only use the data that we’re sure of. Otherwise it’s just GIGO again.

    ATB
    Dave
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Tremar
    Posts
    14,239
    I really can't get into a protracted dialogue over this I'm afraid.

    I've never had anyone complain that they have been hoodwinked or duped or misled into buying the wrong bottle. Quite the reverse; many have written to say how close the predictions are to their own experiences. I know that is only their perception and that it almost certainly differs from actuality, but for many folk their perception is 90% of reality.

    Writing code to fit the Van Der Waal correction when only two points on the curve have any relevance, i.e., 232 and 300 bar (as bottles aren't rated as far as I know to any intermediate values) would be a waste of time and I don't rise to such challenges any more.

    ATB

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in sunny Spain
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    I really can't get into a protracted dialogue over this I'm afraid.

    I've never had anyone complain that they have been hoodwinked or duped or misled into buying the wrong bottle. Quite the reverse; many have written to say how close the predictions are to their own experiences. I know that is only their perception and that it almost certainly differs from actuality, but for many folk their perception is 90% of reality.

    Writing code to fit the Van Der Waal correction when only two points on the curve have any relevance, i.e., 232 and 300 bar (as bottles aren't rated as far as I know to any intermediate values) would be a waste of time and I don't rise to such challenges any more.

    ATB
    Absolutely fair enough.

    I made the comment in the first place because I could only imagine that you were unaware of the considerable error - at 300 Bar - caused by your oversimplification. It now seems that you were well aware of the errors but did it anyway.
    Personally, I wouldn’t do that but each to his own.

    Only your 300 Bar point is affected – the 232 Bar point would be near enough – as explained above.

    ATB
    Dave
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Aylesbury
    Posts
    60,301
    Is it possible that by attempting to belittle someone else's work, Dave, that you feel you're in some way trying to bolster Chairgun as the prime source of ballistic data for airguns? I'm afraid that's how it's looking, to me, anyway.

    Chairgun isn't particularly accurate either. Sorry to drop that on you, but Chairgun 1.8 said that I will need 68 clicks on my big nikko if I shoot AA fields at 55 yards, zeroed as I am at 23 yards wilth all other parameters as built.

    Chairgun 2.? says - for EXACTLY the same physical parameters - I need 58 clicks. Practice tells me I need 56 clicks.

    At the end of the day, does it really matter about a few clicks or a few fills? No, it doesn't.

    The two can live along side each other in perfect harmony without picking holes in someone else's work.

    This thread's sole aim was to provide FREE tables and charts to guide those folk who like that sort of thing.


    Atb,


    Chairgun can be downloaded here.
    Join the Free Speech Union
    ''All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to glaze over and resume scrolling''.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in sunny Spain
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by snock View Post
    Is it possible that by attempting to belittle someone else's work, Dave, that you feel you're in some way trying to bolster Chairgun as the prime source of ballistic data for airguns? I'm afraid that's how it's looking, to me, anyway.
    I’m not trying (or have tried) to belittle anyone or anything – simply pointing out that an error exists. I sited FillCalc (not ChairGun) as a source of comparison (although the same FillCalc algorithm does exist ChairGun2/3). You were the first to mention ChairGun in your post #24. I’m left wondering why you would accuse me of ‘in some way trying to bolster Chairgun as the prime source of ballistic data for airguns’ when it was you who introduced the topic in the first place . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by snock View Post
    Chairgun isn't particularly accurate either. Sorry to drop that on you, but Chairgun 1.8 said that I will need 68 clicks on my big nikko if I shoot AA fields at 55 yards, zeroed as I am at 23 yards wilth all other parameters as built.
    Chairgun 2.? says - for EXACTLY the same physical parameters - I need 58 clicks. Practice tells me I need 56 clicks.
    As mentioned above (my answer in #25 to Rich’s specific reference in #24) ChairGun has evolved, and continues to evolve, subject to specific and changing criteria. ChairGun1 had problems (and errors) in certain areas (although these were resolved by the last – V1.99 – iteration). Changing requirements lead to the adoption of a better mathematical model that had benefits in all areas and ChairGun2 was born.
    Two clicks at 55 Yards is something around ¼ MoA; pretty good when ChairGun2’s specified accuracy is +/- ½ MoA. Did you actually measure the BC or assume a nominal value?

    Quote Originally Posted by snock View Post
    At the end of the day, does it really matter about a few clicks or a few fills? No, it doesn't.
    Quite true. However, does 1/8” Inch of error in 55 Yards really relate to 33 to 24 fills difference (37.5% error)? The former is almost negligible, the latter monumental.

    Quote Originally Posted by snock View Post
    The two can live along side each other in perfect harmony without picking holes in someone else's work.
    Again, I’m not ‘picking holes’ or ‘belittling’ anything or anyone – simply pointing out that an error (a correctable error at that) exists. The more serious point is that Rich (not Rob, sorry), having admitted prior knowledge of the essential Van der Waal correction, failed (for whatever reason) to make said correction and released the flawed spreadsheet anyway. If you’re not bothered by that then perhaps you don’t understand the problem or my concerns.
    It may have been done quickly … it may have been for a good and worthy cause … but, when all is said and done, it’s just plain wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by snock View Post
    This thread's sole aim was to provide FREE tables and charts to guide those folk who like that sort of thing.
    FillCalc is free too.

    ATB
    Dave
    Last edited by Harry's Lad; 07-04-2009 at 08:48 PM. Reason: That'd be Rich, not Rob. Sorry.
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Tremar
    Posts
    14,239
    The 232 bar point would indeed be near enough, an error of about 3 percent I think.

    The error at 300 bar is still only around 8 percent. As I said, it hasn't led to complaints from users - only yours, Dave.

    Compressibility is actually also temperature dependent so unless yet another input parameter is called for, it's going to have to be an approximation.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •