dimpled ''golf ball like'' bb's

little buda

I was thinking, if golf balls fly futher because of there dimples...why not have dimpled bb,s??

any thoughts about the pro's and con's???
is this idea already out has anyone heard or seen anything like this?

bullets

You have just given me the Maaadd Notion of getting a golf ball and gluing
BB's into the dimples of the golf ball!!!!

~B

TheFlatulator

i don't know if it would work as the mould to make the bb's would be able to do it, or if they are using the drip method of production then they would not be able to do it that way either....

Skatedude

I dont think it would work with bb's, they have too little mass for their size,

CrazyRabbit

It would probably increase production costs of bb's dramatically.

I had previously thought about how the Magnus effect could be altered for bb's using dimples. But I figured it wasn't gonna happen so I didn't spend much time looking into it.

kdouglas

i'd imagine that the BBs are so small that any possible dimples you could put in them would make no difference because the dimples themselves would be too small to have any effect. I'd also imagine that the hopup affect applied outweighs the effects of having dimples.

Dr_Pepper

And here i had an image of someone shooting a round ball and the impact making it look like a golfball.

zero19

There are a few thread on arnies about this i think

kevteljeur

Maybe you could test this by carefully cutting out dimples on a few hundred bbs using surgical tools.

kdouglas

kevteljeur wrote: »

Maybe you could test this by carefully cutting out dimples on a few hundred bbs using surgical tools.

Your welcome to go and try it if you like, see you in about ten years

Masada

LOL,.


on a golf ball the dimples are what give it spin to travell further, since we have hopup we dont really need to create any more spin, we have it easy really, the hop would be more effective than dimples but hopup isnt an option for golfers,. well at least not while they use a club to propell the ball, maybe in the future they'll change over to some sort of canon and then the game wont be so boring,.

Stercus Accidit

I though the dimples reduced drag by causing swirling air vortexs on the golf balls surface, reducing air friction.

But on a bb, id say the same effect wouldnt work as its so small, not to mention air pressure lost as it wouldnt seal the barrel effectively.

TheFlatulator

unless we retro fit our AEG's to start using golfballs instead?

Can you imagine the size of a drum mag then

kdouglas

pretty sure that would be over 1 joule, either that or sites would get a lot smaller

hoplite

Motosam wrote: »

I though the dimples reduced drag by causing swirling air vortexs on the golf balls surface, reducing air friction.
QUOTE]

Yep correct they reduce drag.

5uspect

Motosam wrote: »

I though the dimples reduced drag by causing swirling air vortexs on the golf balls surface, reducing air friction.

Just to be pedantic (:)) the dimples cause the flow over the surface (boundary layer) of the ball to turn turbulent earlier which prevents the onset of flow separation. This actually increases the skin friction on the ball itself but reduces the effect of the larger wake associated with a separated wake. A laminar boundary layer has much lower drag than a turbulent boundary layer but is more prone to separation. (The WWII P51 mustang had a special laminar flow wing for example but was prone to stall)

The problem with a BB round is its small size. In order to maintain similar Reynolds numbers to that of a golf ball you would have to increase the velocity of the BB by a factor the difference of the diameter of the golf ball and the BB. (In a wind tunnel you have use a higher velocity or a more viscous fluid like water to get the same flow as on a real aircraft).

Additionally you mightn't be able to generate a transition to turbulence over such a small length as the turbulent eddie length scales might be of a similar order that that of the BB's diameter.

Maybe try to roughen the surface of the BBs with a file or sandpaper instead of using dimples. If a transition is indeed possible then a rough surface is just as good as a dimpled one. It should be easy to roughen up a bucket load of them between two sheets of paper.

o1s1n

5uspect wrote: »

Maybe try to roughen the surface of the BBs with a file or sandpaper instead of using dimples. If a transition is indeed possible then a rough surface is just as good as a dimpled one. It should be easy to roughen up a bucket load of them between two sheets of paper.

Just keep them the hell away from my AEG! :eek:

5uspect

I would imagine they would do more damage rought too!

Stercus Accidit

5uspect wrote: »

I would imagine they would do more damage rought too!

Damage to my lovely barrel, back heathen back!

Beast ASI

5uspect wrote: »

Maybe try to roughen the surface of the BBs with a file or sandpaper instead of using dimples. If a transition is indeed possible then a rough surface is just as good as a dimpled one. It should be easy to roughen up a bucket load of them between two sheets of paper.

o1s1n wrote: »

Just keep them the hell away from my AEG! :eek:

Nope, it should work good.

1st Target make "roughed up" BB's, they apply some sort of finish to them to do this. Never heard anyone use them though, but the theory should work - Offering better grip to the hop.

kevteljeur

Beast ASI wrote: »

Nope, it should work good.

1st Target make "roughed up" BB's, they apply some sort of finish to them to do this. Never heard anyone use them though, but the theory should work - Offering better grip to the hop.

I was going to post that same info earlier but Boards was acting up. Still is, a bit. The reason that the 1st Target rough bbs are unpopular is apparently due to problems with feeding them from mags; presumably they catch on each other and it prevents smooth feeding.

I still say, try out the dimpling. Should be a piece of cake with a .5mm drillbit and some highly trained squirrels.

little buda

I think 5uspect ieda of a bucket load of sanded bb's and my chepo shotgun need to test this out??

also would useing 8mm bb's with a bigger surface area make any difference?

5uspect

bigger should be better since there is more surface for the flow to become turbulent over, experiment with different levels of roughness too.

Gatling

this reminds me of an episode of brainiac ,

except they used a car working with the same priciple ,dimples =less drag meaning slightly faster car .

didnt work though:cool::cool:

5uspect

Well it wouldn't. This works best on a cylinder or a sphere where the dimples/roughness reduce the drag associated with the seperated wake by preventing early seperation. Depending on your Reynolds Number (size of the sphere and the velocity and viscosity of the fluid) the wake will either conform perfectly around the sphere or grow widely.

The Reynods numbers on a fast moving car would be massive. The best way to make a car more slippy would to make the boundary layer laminar throughout as the skin friction over the surface would be much more significant. The wake on a properly designed racing car should be better also. You could bleed air through a porus surface to remove "tired" fluid from the boundary layer to improve this for example and its been tried on some aircraft.

Incidently, most hatchbacks have a small spoiler above the back window to keep the back window clean as it prevents recirculation of air behind the car throwing up dirt from the ground. I think there was a mythbusters about a similar effect in pick up trucks where closing the tailgate actually reduces drag by setting up an entrained vortex.

Since most cars don't go fast enough a spoiler only serves to cause drag. (which is always worth a laugh when you see a boy racer with a huge thing stuck on his car)

Anyway, sorry to ramble. Good luck with the rough BBs!

little buda

the test:

clamped shotguns down
box set at bout 100ft (friend at end of field)
1st fired off a mag of normal bb's
2nd light roughfed bb's
3rd heavy roughfed bb's

ok results are in:

6mm silighty roughfed up = no extra distance, also hop up made lots of back spin on min setting, no better than regular only difference was not as much hop up needed

6mm badly roughfed up = again no real difference but if you want to shoot around coners this is the way to go, like useing .12gram with max hop up

8mmsilighty roughfed up = no change

8mm badly roughfed up = :eek:actully suprised me!!, 15-25feet extra in distance

after test, inside barrels of both shotgun were wrecked+scared up:mad::mad:
(time to buy a new m800)

"I can do scince me!"

5uspect

Scince cat is pleased.
Fair play for testing it.

Masada

LOL.,
i didnt think anyone would be silly enough to try that., rofl.,