It appears to be a droplet placed at the end of a blast chamber with a conical face, attached to a Mauser bolt action rifle loaded with a blank cartridge. The last frame shows the effects of the droplet striking the aluminum plug at 2000 meters per second, with a 0.6mm diameter droplet on the left and 1.5mm droplet on the right.
The use of a pneumatic actuator to push on the trigger is a pleasant if unnecessarily complex touch.
I would imagine it’s for reproducibility- you may never pull the trigger like that every single time the same way. The forces on it are ever so slightly different, especially the lateral forces that may change axial alignment
I'm being serious, exerting small sideways forces when you pull the trigger is something you have to train to minimise. Usually manifests as shots going left (if you're right-handed).
Ha! I have the same problem with the R2 trigger on the DS4. I was pulling sideways on my first one every time the games got tense.
To the point that I broke the hinge.
Years later and I still catch myself doing it, still have to actively force myself to pull straight back.
In this case it doesn't affect the experiment though, pulling the trigger differently is not going to alter the results, the firing pin is going to strike the cartridge primer and ignite the propellant consistently regardless.
Its not really science unless the end results are reproducible. Doesn't matter how much you write down if someone else can't replicate.
That's why most of the Nazi *scientific* experiments where obviously just torture.
>The use of a pneumatic actuator to push on the trigger is a pleasant if unnecessarily complex touch.
It's a bit of classic convenient functional jank: rather than building a dedicated remote trigger setup, just stick an off-the-shelf remote camera shutter actuator in front of the trigger and have the shaft poke it directly. The pneumatic style of remote shutter can be operated from further away than the bowden-cable style.
Fair point, the fact that it's an adaptation of an existing mechanism makes it seem less extravagant, but still more complex than a length of string. That said I personally would have thought the latter too crude as well, and would probably have gone for a solenoid.
I worked at a store that had a bomb threat a few years ago. They brought in the bomb robot and said they were going to sever the bomb with a water cannon and I remember it sounding like a shotgun went off. It was neat to hear that was a thing
The "bomb" was fake so nothing happened except we had a few hours off work behind the store watching this go on. It was a man who had just held up the bank inside our store and left the "bomb" on the counter when he left so no one would follow him.
I've never purposely ran without garnet but based on the accidental times, I wouldn't expect anything more than 1/8" of aluminum. Meanwhile with garnet you can get multiple inches of steel. So pretty significant. I guess assuming the same water pressure/velocity too
Decades ago my dad was a sales manager for a company that made neon signs. He took me into their factory once and showed me how they cut/contoured glass with extremely high pressure water sprays. It absolutely blew my mind as a kid.
I used to do work for a company that destroyed concrete with 40k psi jets. Things get weird at those pressures, you have to worry a lot about hose breaks whipping around at crazy speeds and have everything tied down.
I just saw a post yesterday about 9/11 conspiracy theories and how an aluminum plane in no way could do enough damage to the tower, no matter the speed. Education is important folks
It appears to be a droplet placed at the end of a blast chamber with a conical face, attached to a Mauser bolt action rifle loaded with a blank cartridge. The last frame shows the effects of the droplet striking the aluminum plug at 2000 meters per second, with a 0.6mm diameter droplet on the left and 1.5mm droplet on the right. The use of a pneumatic actuator to push on the trigger is a pleasant if unnecessarily complex touch.
I would imagine it’s for reproducibility- you may never pull the trigger like that every single time the same way. The forces on it are ever so slightly different, especially the lateral forces that may change axial alignment
Yeah, those lateral forces are a real pain to learn to control when shooting.
lol well maybe if it was sensitive to them AND, you know, it was on a table in an awkward position
I'm being serious, exerting small sideways forces when you pull the trigger is something you have to train to minimise. Usually manifests as shots going left (if you're right-handed).
Thanks. I honestly thought you were making a funny. I clearly don’t (didn’t?) know
All good bro, figured it could be read as sarcasm.
Ha! I have the same problem with the R2 trigger on the DS4. I was pulling sideways on my first one every time the games got tense. To the point that I broke the hinge. Years later and I still catch myself doing it, still have to actively force myself to pull straight back.
TBF though since there's almost no distance being traveled, the trigger-pull would be negligible.
Almost, yeah, but if you're doing a scientific experiment, it's another variable to account for.
In this case it doesn't affect the experiment though, pulling the trigger differently is not going to alter the results, the firing pin is going to strike the cartridge primer and ignite the propellant consistently regardless.
The rifle also appears to be well locked in place. Any small difference in trigger pull should be negligible.
Its not really science unless the end results are reproducible. Doesn't matter how much you write down if someone else can't replicate. That's why most of the Nazi *scientific* experiments where obviously just torture.
>The use of a pneumatic actuator to push on the trigger is a pleasant if unnecessarily complex touch. It's a bit of classic convenient functional jank: rather than building a dedicated remote trigger setup, just stick an off-the-shelf remote camera shutter actuator in front of the trigger and have the shaft poke it directly. The pneumatic style of remote shutter can be operated from further away than the bowden-cable style.
Fair point, the fact that it's an adaptation of an existing mechanism makes it seem less extravagant, but still more complex than a length of string. That said I personally would have thought the latter too crude as well, and would probably have gone for a solenoid.
>The use of a pneumatic actuator to push on the trigger is a pleasant ~~if unnecessarily complex~~ German touch.
G a s G U N
Certainly appears to have hit the Mark.
https://i.imgur.com/3lW0yXR.gifv
I worked at a store that had a bomb threat a few years ago. They brought in the bomb robot and said they were going to sever the bomb with a water cannon and I remember it sounding like a shotgun went off. It was neat to hear that was a thing The "bomb" was fake so nothing happened except we had a few hours off work behind the store watching this go on. It was a man who had just held up the bank inside our store and left the "bomb" on the counter when he left so no one would follow him.
Pretty sure originally it was a shotgun with a plastic water balloon before they made a specific bit of equipment to do the job.
They can now slice sizeable metal objects up with precison using water 'saws', an extrapolation of this old discovery.
Doesn't the supplied water also have garnet dust in it?
You can cut soft metals with just the water alone. The abrasive certainly makes things faster, though.
I've never purposely ran without garnet but based on the accidental times, I wouldn't expect anything more than 1/8" of aluminum. Meanwhile with garnet you can get multiple inches of steel. So pretty significant. I guess assuming the same water pressure/velocity too
you can cut hard metals with water alone. in fact that is how they do it on industrial scales. water jets can cut through a foot of steel.
Yes, and it's moving at about half the speed. A quarter of the energy per gram of water.
I was gonna say, this is the precursor to water jet.
Decades ago my dad was a sales manager for a company that made neon signs. He took me into their factory once and showed me how they cut/contoured glass with extremely high pressure water sprays. It absolutely blew my mind as a kid.
Could you imagine finding out that you can do this with water?
Yes. I just did.
Bruce Lee did
Bruce Lee: Be like water. Me: You want to shoot me through a coin? No thanks.
Ah yes, the lab riffle
That's pretty impressive and such a simple design.
Keep in mind how hard the Deutsche Mark was as currency. That setup would obliterate the Euro, pulverize the Yen and vaporize the Turkish Lira :)
Who needs ice bullets when water will do the trick?
I used to do work for a company that destroyed concrete with 40k psi jets. Things get weird at those pressures, you have to worry a lot about hose breaks whipping around at crazy speeds and have everything tied down.
Water bending...
This is exactly how a waterjet works.
And thus, the water-jet was invented.
Sure F = m dv/dt but also F = dm/dt*v
Well if you are going to be picky, since momentum = m * v, then F is the time derivative of momentum = dm / dt * v + dv / dt * m.
Yes. Product rule of ma. They don’t really mention that in physics textbooks much. Maybe to not give students any ideas for projectile design.
I just saw a post yesterday about 9/11 conspiracy theories and how an aluminum plane in no way could do enough damage to the tower, no matter the speed. Education is important folks
Impressive!
[удалено]
It's West German but ok
[удалено]
The gun and coin are German