Where does the energy go?

[TKelly]

However, the percussion round ball has greater linear velocity (for some reason) and therefore, is more able to traverse more ground along the horizontal within the same time period.

I thought we were assuming the same KE for both, and both are .58 caliber.

By definition of a lead round ball with the same kinetic energy, both would have to weigh the same and have the same velocity.

So given the same velocity, same caliber, same weight, the only variable remaining is the gyroscopic action.

I'm assuming this is a purely hypothetical question as I would not expect the difference in range to be as great as you state.

Josh

You are exactly correct here Josh!

I overlooked the possibility of deflection. I prematurely attributed the shortness in range to the internal physical dynamics of the smoothbore muzzleloader and its lack of efficiency.
I envisioned gases being lost due to an improper sealing between the round ball and barrel, as opposed to the conical and barrel.

As it turns out, the rifled ML most likely burns its propellant more efficiently and as a result might experience a greater muzzle velocity. However, it has been established that the increase in muzzle velocity will be minimal.

 

[TKelly]

I was initially thinking along those lines, as well. However, round balls don't obturate and create that much more pressure buil-up, to manifest that much velocity.

They don't obturate the bore nearly to the degree that conicals do!

 

[TKelly]

With the same mass and same velocity they will fly the same distance before hitting the ground assuming the ball fired from the smoothbore travels in a straight direction like the ball from the rifled gun will do.

Yes Zonie, the same mass, absolutely! The same muzzle velocity, I'm not so certain...

The round ball from the smoothbore will be under less built-up pressure. It therefore, should have a smaller muzzle velocity. This should provide less energy for any type of motion whether it be translational, rotational, or yawing. The round ball from the rifled bore would have been under greater pressure build-up and subsequently, have greater translational energy. This translational energy is used to propel the round ball at a greater muzzle velocity. It's this greater muzzle velocity that provides the greater range for the rifled round ball.
It therefore, traverses a greater horizontal distance.

The only possible reason the ball fired from a smoothbore might hit the ground sooner than the one fired from a rifled barrel is due to deflection from the straight path that the spinning ball fired from a rifle would have.

The extreme case of yawing is always a distinct possibility!

As a ball fired from a smoothbore is not spinning it acts like a "knuckle ball" in baseball and the slightest variation of the surface of the ball will cause it to depart from a straight line of flight due to the various air pressures acting on the forward side.

As already stated, yawing is always a distinct possibility, due to the Magnus effect.

In each case here, the operative word would more appropriately be deflection, not necessarily "yaw". Although the "yaw" is a possibilty after ignition and deformation.

 

[TKelly]

Hey there Just J!

A round ball yaws in a smoothbore ML, by bouncing around within all that bore space until it gets to the end of the muzzle, where it then takes on its path of trajectory. The more it strays from the imaginary linear axis formed between the barrel and the target, the more it yaws. Rifling theoretically eliminated the yaw in most cases and delivered greater accuracy to muzzleloading.

* I could say, the more it strays from the average parabolic trajectory between the barrel and the target.

Round balls aren't the perfect round balls upon ignition. However here, deflection most probably would have been a better word for this application.

 

[TKelly]

A round ball bounces around inside a smooth bore? Where did you come up with that one?
The patch, the patch! That's what seals the bore, rifled or smooth, not the lead round ball expanding magically on its back side.
Riling gives spin to the ball causing gyroscope effect which helps the ball maintain a truer trajectory.

The round ball does obturate the barrel to some minimal degree.

 

[TKelly]

Hey there Just J,

In a vacuum or in the absence of air, both projectiles would arrive at identical horizontal distances. Therefore, they would both have the same range.

However, since we're dealing with a realistic scenario here, the spinning round ball will experience less drag due to gyroscopic angular momentum or rotational motion. Since the rifled round ball is the spinning round ball, it will have a decidedly longer range than the round ball launched from the smoothbore.

The rifled round ball will have decidedly more "predictable" range than that of the smoothbore's round ball.

 

[Joel/Calgary]

Once again:

Obturation is not the upsetting of the bullet, it is the sealing of the bore which may be produced by the upsetting of the bullet, or may be produced by something else achieving the requisite tight fit.

And FWIW, consider that the gas pressure acting on the base of a round ball is not pushing straight forward like on a flat base bullet, but radially inward on a hemisphere. The resultant stress fields are rather different.

Regards,
Joel

 

[TKelly]

Once again:

Obturation is not the upsetting of the bullet, it is the sealing of the bore which may be produced by the upsetting of the bullet, or may be produced by something else achieving the requisite tight fit.

And FWIW, consider that the gas pressure acting on the base of a round ball is not pushing straight forward like on a flat base bullet, but radially inward on a hemisphere. The resultant stress fields are rather different.

Regards,
Joel

So Joe, are you saying that the shape of the round ball never deforms to the point that some form of obturation takes place?

I'm most certain that there are a variety of possible shapes that the round takes on. You'd have to defer to some type of statistical data sheet as to what shapes are most evident but, I'm certain that the deformation of the round does to some degree, obturate the barrel.

Your saying that obturation is the tight sealing of the barrel.

I get that. What am I saying here, that's making you feel that I DON'T get that?

It's due to the deformation of the projectile while it's in the barrel, that obturation takes place. Without the deformation, the sealing is not possible. The projectile OBTURATES the barrel. It's the only thing changing. It seals the barrel. I could say that the barrel becomes sufficiently obturated, but just sounds retarded.

Without this upsetting of the projectile, obturation cannot and will not take place!

Most Sincerely,
Kodiak

PS.

I think that you're a great person but...
Let's just discuss something that matters. :v

 

[longbow1]

So the use of all this lube some people use is hindering this process because of the lack of ball tension by using to much lube or a very slick lube

 

[longcruise]

And FWIW, consider that the gas pressure acting on the base of a round ball is not pushing straight forward like on a flat base bullet, but radially inward on a hemisphere. The resultant stress fields are rather different

I'm no engineer, just a plain old thinking shooter! And, plain old thinking leads me to agree with that statement. Here's a pic of it that might help illustrate.

IMO, the process of short starting the ball would have more upsetting effect that the pressure of the powder ignition.

I keep reading on this and other forums about how balls obturate (upset in the bore to create obturation of the bore) but nobody has ever successfully measured this as far as I know.

So the use of all this lube some people use is hindering this process because of the lack of ball tension by using to much lube or a very slick lube

Not sure which process you are addressing, but lube does cause some variations in velocities. They can be significant! If you chrono the difference in a very slick grease lube and a "dry lube" such as done with Dutch's system, you will find considerable difference.

Here is the original question posed;

Hey there guys!

So here's the deal. You have a true Flintlock smoothbore and a percussion muzzleloader. Both are .58 caliber.

Both have the same amount of BP or charge. They are both fired from the same position, at the same time, and from the same angle. Therefore, the same amount of Kinetic Energy is imparted to each breech to launch each RB, respectively.

Due to the fact that the percussion ML has a rifled barrel, its round ball is located 250 yds. away. It is able to remain airborn for this distance due to its higher velocity and flatter trajectory, because of its rate of twist and rotational motion which assures greater accuracy. The smoothbores round ball is located only 70 yds away.

Questions:

How does the Kinectic Energy not get imparted to the smoothbore ML as it did the rifled ML?

Where did this Energy go?

If the KE doesn't go towards the linear propulsion of the RB, to which other forms of energy does it get converted?

If you read this over carefully you will find that it is completely non-sensical in terms of what the actual question is.

 

[Danbo]

KH, at the risk of sounding gruff, my comments were called for. You got a lot of learning to do Pilgrim.

An example would be your incorrect conclusion that when/if round balls obturate the bore they will be elongated in form. If they do in fact change their form under stress from the powder charge, and that is a debatable issue, their form would be correctly described as an oblate spheroid. That means they will be shorter than their diameter. It also means CG and CP are co-located...still.

When conical bullets obturate the bore they do not elongate, but instead are shortened very slightly. Apologies if these facts are inconvenient.

Another would be your picking of nits on ballistic science. There is a threshold of significance in all discussions ballistic, that being as what point variables induce significant effect. Nothing discussed in this thread provides basis to explain the generalized summary of differences of splash range between the arms described in the original post. That means there is no basis (within those items discussed thus far) to conclude there is a significant variable which explains the initial observation. Logically speaking then, there must be something else at play.

Mostly the discussion provided by Pletch, Dan Phariss and a goodly number of others who are very highly qualified to present their thoughts have been ignored. Thus I conclude you are either simply stirring the pot or are searching for minor factoids to support your closely held beliefs. Neither avenue leads to the truth.

I'm not trying to be a hard case with you on this, but you are flogging a dead horse on your present course. I'm done here either way.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I propose the solution is the fellow who loaded the smoothbore did not clean out the old oil, the powder was contaminated, the ball fell short. It has nothing to do with the false premise that accuracy follows range or vice versa and the kenitec energy was never created in the first place but remained potential energy in the chemical composition of the unburned blackpowder.

Next.

I think we're confusing "obturate" with "obdurate" and quite possibly "obtuse". :rotf:

 

[longbow1]

With a greased patch the tenison on the ball would not allow the ball to expand and fill the barrel because as soon as you set off the black powder the grease lube ball would have less resistance in the barrel not allowing the ball to fill the barrel as well as it would using a dry lube where there will be more resistance in the barrel. So a dry lube would have more pressure behind in giving it more velocity

 

[TKelly]

And FWIW, consider that the gas pressure acting on the base of a round ball is not pushing straight forward like on a flat base bullet, but radially inward on a hemisphere. The resultant stress fields are rather different

I'm no engineer, just a plain old thinking shooter! And, plain old thinking leads me to agree with that statement. Here's a pic of it that might help illustrate.

IMO, the process of short starting the ball would have more upsetting effect that the pressure of the powder ignition.

I keep reading on this and other forums about how balls obturate (upset in the bore to create obturation of the bore) but nobody has ever successfully measured this as far as I know.

So the use of all this lube some people use is hindering this process because of the lack of ball tension by using to much lube or a very slick lube

Not sure which process you are addressing, but lube does cause some variations in velocities. They can be significant! If you chrono the difference in a very slick grease lube and a "dry lube" such as done with Dutch's system, you will find considerable difference.

Here is the original question posed;

Hey there guys!

So here's the deal. You have a true Flintlock smoothbore and a percussion muzzleloader. Both are .58 caliber.

Both have the same amount of BP or charge. They are both fired from the same position, at the same time, and from the same angle. Therefore, the same amount of Kinetic Energy is imparted to each breech to launch each RB, respectively.

Due to the fact that the percussion ML has a rifled barrel, its round ball is located 250 yds. away. It is able to remain airborn for this distance due to its higher velocity and flatter trajectory, because of its rate of twist and rotational motion which assures greater accuracy. The smoothbores round ball is located only 70 yds away.

Questions:

How does the Kinectic Energy not get imparted to the smoothbore ML as it did the rifled ML?Where did this Energy go?

Sense one is already aware that range in this situation is directly related to horizontal muzzle velocity. The question is posed in this manner.

The test question was posed in this manner, as well.

If the KE doesn't go towards the linear propulsion of the RB, to which other forms of energy does it get converted?

This question is legitimate for both muzzleloaders as the kinetic energy in both cases gets converted to thermal, rotational, and translational energy.If you read this over carefully you will find that it is completely non-sensical in terms of what the actual question is.

So, what's so nonsensical?

I'm simply asking a question. I'm presenting a problem and asking questions as best as I can remember they were asked of me many years ago.

Thus far, I can't see any major problems with the scenario, other than the fact that both most probably should have been fired from a percussion muzzleloader. However, that's not my fault. In the original question, I distinctly remember there being two different muzzleloaders, one a smoothbore flintlock and one a percussion rifle.

Based upon what's been stated thus far, that wouldn't have made much difference, anyway...

As far as I'm concerned, the original question was supposed to have been one based upon differences in energy transformations with regards to smoothbores and rifled muzzleloaders.

However, there was at least one variable that was missing from the scenario and that was the range of the smoothbore round ball.

However, I do remember that it was far short of the rifled round ball.

As it stands right now, the only explanation for that particular discrepancy is barrel deflection.

If we were to arrest this situation immediately, we could still account for all energy transformations. To that extent, we could answer all asked questions.

 

[longcruise]

With a greased patch the tenison on the ball would not allow the ball to expand and fill the barrel because as soon as you set off the black powder the grease lube ball would have less resistance in the barrel not allowing the ball to fill the barrel as well as it would using a dry lube where there will be more resistance in the barrel. So a dry lube would have more pressure behind in giving it more velocity

So here we go with the expansion of the ball statement again! Show me your evidence that this takes place. It's been stated over and over so many times that it's accepted as fact, but there is not one iota of actual evidence that a ball upsets in the bore.

 

[longcruise]

So, what's so nonsensical?

Ok, here is your question posted here again.

Hey there guys!

So here's the deal. You have a true Flintlock smoothbore and a percussion muzzleloader. Both are .58 caliber.

Both have the same amount of BP or charge. They are both fired from the same position, at the same time, and from the same angle. Therefore, the same amount of Kinetic Energy is imparted to each breech to launch each RB, respectively.

Due to the fact that the percussion ML has a rifled barrel, its round ball is located 250 yds. away. It is able to remain airborn for this distance due to its higher velocity and flatter trajectory, because of its rate of twist and rotational motion which assures greater accuracy. The smoothbores round ball is located only 70 yds away.

Questions:


Where did this Energy go?

If the KE doesn't go towards the linear propulsion of the RB, to which other forms of energy does it get converted?

And here is my critique of your question.

You propose to compare a flintlock smoothie to a percussion rifle and thereafter pose no basis for such a comparison.

Then you state that due to the rifled barrel of the one, it's projectile is found 250 yards away and the smoothie is 70 yards away. In that same statement you explain why when you say;

It is able to remain airborn for this distance due to its higher velocity and flatter trajectory, because of its rate of twist and rotational motion which assures greater accuracy.

So now we have a specious solution to a problem (250 yards vs 70 yards) for which there is no basis to believe that this event or phenomenom ever took place or would take place.

Somewhere you left behind the idea that flint as opposed to percussion was relevant. You never address whether or not the perc/flint difference is relevant. Of course, it's difficult to relate relevance when your post fails to show any clear idea of what your own question is.

Next you ask;

How does the Kinectic Energy not get imparted to the smoothbore ML as it did the rifled ML?

Ok, so where is the evidence that it did not. Is it your supposition of 250 vs 70 yards of projectile travel? Are you asking for an explanation as to what is the cause for your fictional supposition?

Then we have;

Where did this Energy go?

See above, as in "asking for an explanation as to what is the cause for your fictional supposition".

Then there is;

If the KE doesn't go towards the linear propulsion of the RB, to which other forms of energy does it get converted?

That question should be prefaced with some sort of scientific proof that the energy did not go towards the linear propulsion of the RB, should it not?

You should print your post off, take it to your old high school and present it to your science teacher as an hypothese.

Dan Phariss told your correctly that you should spend more time shooting and less time typing.

and danbo correctly stated that;

I'm not trying to be a hard case with you on this, but you are flogging a dead horse on your present course. I'm done here either way.

And, I'm also done here! :blah:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Ah, the smoothbore struck and passed-through a deer at 50 yards and the rifled bore missed - hense the difference in entropy (enegry dispersal) and range!

 

[longbow1]

This is beginning to sound like a traditional archery site I quit going to :idunno: :dead:

 

[Larry Pletcher]

Ah, the smoothbore struck and passed-through a deer at 50 yards and the rifled bore missed - hense the difference in entropy (enegry dispersal) and range!

I still like my idea that the smoothbore hit a tree beside the deer, and the rifled shot hit the deer, which ran an additional 180 yds and died.

Regards,
Pletch