More classic Iron man

Admin's and Mod's Admins and Mod's - Archive Room
#361

Thanks for that. Stoat’s comments are quite valid about the diameter then, even with overlap a 30 round magazine would be about a foot long. Mind you I suppose .280 Brit would be even worse. I wonder if Grendel suffers the barrel wear problems that WSSM does?
Oh, and is it only me that finds the idea of using an assault rifle for hunting distasteful? :evil:

Stoat, the Coffee Grinder Man is worth a laugh. :lol: A mate thinks that you’d need at least a PP3 battery to set off black powder, I might experiment if I get chance, just for the hell of it.

#362

a PP3 and a bit of resistance wire or wire wool would probably do it. I wonder how big a spark you’d need to set it off by spark alone, if that’s even possible?

I don’t find anything distateful about hunting with an AR15 (semi-auto, so not an assault rifle) - people seem to be too fixated on aesthetics these days. A rifle’s a rifle. Would your reaction have been the same if the conversion had been done on a Ruger Mini-30 Ranch Rifle, or one of the many other semi-auto hunting rifles on the market?

#363

It’s not the aestethics that concern me (I was wrong to say “assault rifle”, I meant semi-auto), it’s something about the attitude to the quarry. I would worry that the instant availablity of a second shot would encourage people to shoot live quarry with insufficient skills on their part or to take marginal shots. I would consider either option to be inhumane.

#364

Possibly, but if the shooter’s good, 9 times out of 10 it doesn’t matter - the other 1 time out of 10, the semi-auto may be the difference between a relatively quick kill and a wounded animal getting away. But you’re right, it could encourage some people to take marginal shots.

#365

This is rather long but I think you guys should read it and give your opinion

Email From me to IRONMAN

IRONMAN

Look. I am not against you. I understand you get alot of guff from the other members of the site. Mostly the Brits. I know coz they email me about twice a week gripping about you. Today I was trying to keep the peace and drop the issue. But sorry when you tell an admin to kiss your ass you can expect a formal warning. I have also told Man of Stoat to drop the issue. He has tried to press it as if this was mythbusters. If he keeps it up he will be issued a formal warning.

You are a welcome member to the site. The only problem that i have is that everytime there is a flame war you are involved in it. So if you calm down and cut me some slack I will do the same for you. Maybe your done with the site. Sorry if thats the case. I do enjoy reading alot of your post and would hate to see you leave. However, I cant have you going off the deep end everytime someone cuts at you. Feel free to PM me when you have a problem with what someone is saying or just state that you are offended by a certain comment.

Respectfully yours,

Gen. Sandworm

His response to my email:

Gen. Sandworm,

Please take the time to read this rather lengthy response.

I understand how you feel, and yea, I went off the deep end. I expected to be banned for the post, so I’d say you are showing kindness that you didn’t. I apologize for it. I just lost it for a minute there. Thanks for saying that you like some of my posts. I try ot be honest and realistic with them and provide good sources for my information. However, please consider the following:

There has been an awefull lot of bullhockey posted on your very cool forums. At first, I tried to be very gentle when posting a correction to someone’s incorrect info. What is going on there is that several British members are clannish, and they can’t stand it when someone corrects them because they think nobody has the right to show reproach to their untarishable perfection because they are British. It’s pathetic. When they correct each other it’s fine. But let someone who is not carrying a Union Jack on their sleeve do so and here comes the artilley, evensofar as to attack someone, even if what they are saying is abosolutely true and not based on opinion, such as what color the sky is at mid-day. If you aren’t a Brit, they will gang up on you with name calling and insults referring to your ignorance and unintelligence. Such garbage is posted as jet engines can be made twice thier size and weigh about the same. If you post something which shows this to be scientifically impossible (it goes unsaid that it must also have similar power) then they will go so far as to defend something that is completely impossible or untrue just for the sake of not allowing someone who is not British to be able to correct them. It’s completely perposterous. The result is that they turn a 2 page thread into a 20 page thread filled with ridiculous defenses of the undefendable.

I started losing it when they posted crap about the US military being cowboys with MG’s who shoot wildly and unaimingly. To back up their claim, they state that the British military by contrast is unreproachable. It was at that point that I knew that what was going on there was not just casual patriotism, but it was complete and utter garbage. I disproved it with posts that show that the US is not a bunch of irresponsible cowboys with guns, and the British have made the same mistakes in war. What was the result of defending my nation against such utter bullhockey? It was numerous pages of insults about how I am too stupid to understand anything - instead of, “Oh, yea, I guess that’s right. Every nation makes mistakes in war. I guess I was harsh in saying that the US military is wreckless.” You KNOW that would never happen. You have heard me say that there was anti-Americanism going on in the forum, well, there certainly is, and it starts in the form of “Everything is British you little putz. How dare you perpose to know anything or say that anything from any other nation is anything! You are an idiot!” It’s so thick it makes me sick.

Those members go so far as to create threads devoted to talking about thier British military stuff (which I don’t have any problem with if that’s as far as it goes), but if you do the same, they come to the thread you started with their sleeves rolled up looking for a fight and fill the thread with “God save the Queeen!” and “Royal Dragoons”, and other British-specific stuff, and post as much unrelated debates into them from other threads as they can for the expressed purpose of destroying your thread. You can’t say or do anything on the forum that shows the US or anything that is not British in origin in a positive light without exactly that happening. They clan together like drug lord thugs to destroy anything that is not British in origin. They have greatly diminished the quality of the forums with such behavior and tactics. I cannot believe it has been allowed to go to such lenghts. I am not anti-British, and I have said so on the site numerous times. But their dog pack behavior of wanton destructiveness and insulting demeanor is completely unacceptable. Imagine if there were a group who were American and acted that way there. You would be recieving 50 emails a day complaing about it from them. I have not posted things in such an American-centric manner as they do, and have tried to be a part of the group, even by complimenting the British military and such. But thay don’t care. They want to rule the forum with an iron hand, even if it requires resorting to insults and gang-banging. I have made tremendous efforts to remain calm and not be reactionary, but they insist upon accellerating the anger with insults and posting one lie after another to support the first lie, simply to try to bury your intelligent rebuttle of a point under so much name-calling and insinuation that they think you will give up because of the sheer volume of it.

What upset me so much the other day was that I was challenged to show that the patent issued in 2000 described my illustrations. So I provided cropped portions of them and the text from the 2000 patent to prove (once and for all I thought) that it was precicely the same. Then they decide to say, “Oh now you have modified your drawings to match the text! You are a liar!”. That pissed me off. They were so determined to defend their position that I am not intelligent enough to have invented something because I am not British that they resorted to calling me a liar and say that Ii modified the drawings, even though I don’t believe that they actually believed that I had. Anything to disqualify you, even if it means calling you a liar and saying such hogwash! So I thought I’d post the drawings uncropped so they could see for themselves that they had not been modified. But when I did, you were already posting for everyone to drop the subject, and when I posted it not knowing this, you deleted my post. You took away my ability to prove that thier accusation was not justified and to redeem myself against thier insulting lie. That made me lose it. Just as I thought I was going to put the heckling to rest, you deleted it and would not allow me to post the originals to prove my point that I had not modified anything at all. I lost it at that point. I felt that you did not want to allow me to defend my honor by proving that their accusation that I altered the drawings was false, and that pissed me off. At that point, I was done with the forum, and untill I got your email, I was. Now I am reconsidering returning since you have not banned me.

I hope this helps you to understand how I felt and why I went off the deep end.

IRONMAN

Another he sent me not to long afterwords:

By the way, I started that thread, and discussion of the invention is indeed pertinent to the subject of the thread, so when you said “Back to topic.” I was scratching my head. I realize that you got tired of the arguing. I was tired of it too, but since I was on topic, I was very offended that I was not allowed to post the images that proved that their insinuation that I had altered the images was false. It’s like being called a filthy liar, then having the admin cut you off just when you are about to show that you are not. I felt that you were supporting their accusation that I modified my illustrations to lie, and that really offended me.

IRONMAN

#366

I read the mail,and i think,from the begining that Ironman is a very good person,he has a heart,that´s why he feels sensibilized about insults,he´s very patriot too,and that´s the most important for his country,to have patriot people.
he not burns the post,insulting or something like that.But,when the brits don´t like him,they will never like him.

i know he has much fights,but,do you see what people he fights with?,all british with that british humour,sometimes offensive.

they don´t need to ridiculize him.

if he mades or not bad posts,or with incorrect information,just correct him,no attack.

this is only my opinion,and if you think that my opinion is because the brits are from england,and im from argentina (bad relations),you´re wrong,im friend of the brits,i chat with them,i just evade talking about falklands/malvinas war now.As you see in my recent post in the falklands topic.

We are moderators,we can handle every problem now,we are lots.

#367

well, if he is flamed by the british, he can fire back without any insults. or he can report this to us, okay, maybe he dont want to be a cry baby, but it is obvious we will be on his side if he respond in a nicer way and back up his claim with prove

#368

I understand him, that’s why when I asked him to edit his post, I didn’t quoted! Anyway, in a short time he has edited his insulting post.

This email explains me a lot. Now I understand many of IRONMAN’s attitudes. Anyway I agree also with FW-190 and Erwin’s point of view.
If he’ll respond in a polite way (without insults) I’ll be on his side
if he’ll be offended by the Brits.
Also I’ll try to correct and not give him even an informal warning (with exception of insults :smiley: - first time I understand, second time or more is not normal).

#369

ah, I dont know it seems to be a tricky situation. I have no idea about his insulting posts and the other guys insulting posts about firearms, because I rarely visit that topic. I now nothing off firearms and such, and yes theres always a flame war and so I kindoff avoid it. I do agree that the bunch off Brits seem to go too far and really start to bash IRONMAN when he is wrong. I guess it is just the reputation he will have to live with.

I remember the first time IRONMAN came on the site. I automatically noticed that he gets pissed off very easily. I think it was the debate about WW2 fighters. Well anyway he posted some info on a plane, and after that I corected his info. He was giving misguided information and some of the specs were wrong. But after I corrected it he immediately thrashed at me saying that I always corrected him and it was just because he is an American etc.etc.

I have read the topics where there seems to be allot of debating, for instance Assualt rifles, but I have not posted one thing on that topic. I dont know shit about guns and how to classify them, and so my mind was open and ready for new ideas. When I read the posts, it seemed to me that IRONMAN was alone defending his idea, while everyone else was against him. I do not believe they were against him just because they were British and he American. In my opinion the other guys were defending there ideas with a few links, and new information. IRONMAN however was repeating what he said a million times. In the end I came to the conclusion that IRONMAN was wrong on that, and well to me it looked pretty obvious. Anyhow that seems to be the start of his reputation that he gives wrong info and stuff. It continued on other posts but I can not remember what.

Sorry for the long post and I dont know if all this was needed but my conclusion is that I think half the problem (if not more) is with IRONMAN. His inabillity to change his ideas and to agree seems to be the main problem. Also his inabillity to give reliable informatiom is another big problem. I am not saying that he is completely unreliable, he has posted many many excellant posts, but some times he hasnt. It seems that IRONMAN is the match and firewood, and the brits the oxygen. They are all very patriotic and so therefore they all have strong ideas.

So what I suggest is that we put this behind us and moniter flame war topics very cloesely. I have no problem with debating, and a little spark is always very nice :smiley: but when it becomes personall and very direct insults then we should be ready to issue warnings.

#370

Deep words S.A.M.!! In one phrase you just describe the situation! :smiley:

#371

Well I think we are all pretty much in agreement. I sent him an email and said come on back to the site and we will watch things more closely. I think that SAM hit the nail on the head with his statement. So lets cut IRONMAN some slack as long as he follows the rules and doesnt get insulting. He seems to be a good guy. But we must remember we have to be fair to all and that supercedes nice guys. :slight_smile:

#372

…but a patent was granted in 2000 for it. Your little experiment is flawed. You used the wrong compound and a wimpy electrical source. :roll:

The patent was issued in 2000 without a working model. Working models are not required for the granting of patents. The US patent office does not have a testing facility.

Peizo electric? Good Lord no. I never mentioned peizo electric in my documents. It seems that you came up with the “peizo electric” thing as a way of trying to discredit the invention… which received a patent in 2000, btw. Do you know what a stungun is? Notice the huge spark and 50,000 volts that can be had from a little battery smaller than a pager. I never even described the power source, as it is not applicable to the patent at all. My design, and the patent issued in 2000, were for the method, not the energy source. Whether you use a 9V battery or a 12 cylinder deisel engine turning a generator is irrelevent to the patent.

Sure I did. I posted them, and you saw them. That comment is like the one you made that I changed my illustrations, which you knew was untrue when you made it.

…and a patent was issued in 2000 for one that did not use a hot wire. It used an electrode, like the one I illustrated in 1992. :roll:

I realize that a couple of you want very badly to discredit me for inventing it. That’s fine. But if you want to discuss it, at least stick to the facts of the patent and not assumptions about it’s electrical power source or accusing me of altering things to suite the patent that was granted, etc. That seems hard for some to do though, since they want so much to discredit my invention that they move away from what is documented toward what is not a part of the 2000 patent of my illustrations from 8 years before it. The challenge is for them to stay with the facts, since they support my claim to the invention. But let’s try shall we? If you discuss it, stick with the documents and illustrations, because they are the only things that matter to the patent office.

Edited to correct typos only.

#373

Aren’t we supposed to be talking about the FUTURE of firearms, not a 121 year old method of firing ammunition?

Speaking of which, I watched a documentary the other day which had a few seconds of Metal Storm footage (the big box of electronically fired barrels stacked with electric caseless ammunition end to end). Very interesting but one has to wonder, how accurate can the first round out of the box be, when it uses what is such a short effective length of barrel?

#374

Well, it is new technology for small arms. Thus the patent granted in 2000 for an electrically discharged ammunition primer, which has been liscened for research and development. As for caseless ammunition, I thought gun makers had given up on it because of the problems they were having with it. I could be wrong though.

Actually, I think the real future of small arms will be met when battery capacity technology has improved greatly. Then we will have laser weapons like in the scifi flicks. The trouble is packing enough electrons into a battery to make it work. The other end is the optical part of focusing a beam and keeping it from dispersing because of the atmosphere over long distances is what is keeping that technology from becoming reality. The US has been experimenting with this technology, and they have made weapons that can kill at distances of up to couple hundred meters, but they are good for something like a couple of shots and then the battery is dead.

#375

Welcome back, Ironman, it’s been so quiet & sensible here without you.

Either you’re very foolish in thinking that we didn’t spot that you completely changed your scans (which makes pages & pages of discussion seem bizarre), or you think that we’re even more foolish that you are. The fact that you are maintaining that you didn’t change them when clearly you (lots of others spotted it too) did indicates that both are true, and that you even believe yourself.

Your /original/ post (not the one with an edit to change everything to precisely reflect the wording of the RA patent, nor the 2nd one where an arrow had been moved to point at something, i.e. the one that was scans from hand & typewritten docs that had a description, some diagrams & no claims) had a spark gap and no primer compound. In this, the spark was expected to ignite the main charge. I can remember some of my work files from a year ago, so I’m not likely to forget your docs from a fortnight ago.

I experimented, and a normal spark cannot ignite any of the powders I tried. And I don’t think that a 50,000V spark would have any different effect from the approx. 2000V spark from the piezo. You didn’t specify a voltage required, only an electrical spark.

The trouble is packing enough electrons into a battery

ROTFLMAO :roll: Batteries store energy as chemical energy, not as electrons packed in. Your statement would be true (if written in laymans terms) for a supercapacitor (an engineer would have used the term “charge”), but not for a battery.

#376

Nonsence, and an offensive accusation actually. Here’s the original scan. Study it hard. Put on your reading glasses. Open it in Corel Photopaint, whatever. I’ll take that apology for accusing me of altering the images now.

I changed nothing. You didn’t get uit did you? I’ll run it by you once more. My illustration was on the left, the text from the 2000 patent is on the right. That was to show that they are precicely the same. I tried to make it dummy proof. :shock:

Huh??? You need to put on your reading glasses. Once more. Image on left, text on right. Dummy proof.

Yea, I sent in a design like that too. I sent in several actually. Some with a single electrode, some with 2 electrodes. Here’s the one you are thinking of now:

But you were not able to distinguish what is what in a text described illustration?

Mr. Patent Office Man, ( :roll: ) let me help you understand patents. The patent that was granted in 2000 describes a primer material being ignited by an electrical charge. (My illustration and documents do the same.) The patent is for the method, not the materials. The patent office doesn’t give a crap what the material is. The patent is not for a material. It is for a physiological design that creates a new method. The material is irrelevant to the patent. It is described as an explosive, and that is all that is required for THAT patent.

Dude, chemical energy IS electrons. ALL CHEMISTRY IS ELECTRONS. It is electons that create the atomic bonds between atoms to form molecules. All chemical reactions takes place because of electrons. Even photosynthesis in plants takes place because photons cause electon activity. And in photography, silver salts are chemically changed to silver halide because photons cause electon activity in the silver salts.

The challenge to create batteries with greater capacity is the challenge of placing more free electrons into the materials inside the battery. :lol:

The energy in a battery is the difference in numbers of electrons between one material and another. The electrons do not get absorbed into the battery from the environment, They are already in the materials inside the battery.

The battery gives off electrons as a source of energy because the electrons are allowed to jump from the orbit of one atom to another and to another etc. The capacity of a battery depends upon how many electrons exist in the materials inside the battery (electrolytes) and their ability to react, allowing those electrons to jump from one atom to another. A battery is depleted when there are no more free electons to jump. A battery is fully charged when the electrolyte atoms are not able to accept any more free electrons in thier atomic orbits.

Now do you understand? Chemisty is electricity. It all happens because of electrical (electron) activity.

Now that you understand electricity … err… I mean chemistry enough to understand that a battery can provide a spark great enough to cause things like blasting caps to explode, and now that you see the original document which has not been altered, and now that you understand that the explosive material in the primer does not determine the patentability of the design, I’ll take that apology.

Edited to correct typos only

#377

BTW, I fail to understand why you seem to be debating the validity of my design based on your failed experiments with traditional primer materials. The patent granted in 2000 was for the device I designed 8 years prior, and it did not state what the material was either. This is because the specific material is not a part of the patent.

Let me say that once more.

A patent that for an electonicaly discharged primer for small arms was granted in 2000. The application did not specify what material was used as the explosive in the primer.

The patent was granted.

The primer material was not specified.

It happened in the year 2000.

If you want to say that the design is invalid, you need to take that up with the US Patent Office and tell them that they granted a patent for something they should not have. Your little experiment is completely irrelevant.

#378

You have a “spark gap”, not “an electrically conductive primer composition”. Can’t you see the fundamental difference?

#379

And patents for electrically discharged primers for small-arms were granted back in the 19th century (see the patent numbers up the thread). The RA patent is an improvement on these.

Most electric primers & dets don’t use a spark, the electricity usually generates heat (either with a hot wire, or as in the RA patent, by passing current through an electrically conductive primer composition) which ignites the primer material.

#380

Also, further points:

  1. there are no more or less electrons in a full battery than in an empty one. They are at a lower energy state in the expired battery. The challenge is to make the difference between the energy states of the electrons in the before & after compounds as high as possible, not to simply ram more in.

  2. The RA patent’s claim 1 is not for a method, it’s for a device (we have 4 categories of claim - Product, Process, Apparatus and Use - see Rule 29(2) EPC for instance), to wit "An electrically activated primer ". That’s a device claim. A method claim would be worded “A method for igniting a firearm cartridge comprising the steps of…”. The patent office does “give a crap” what the material is - RA have “an electrically conductive primer composition”, you have an “air gap”. Patents are not, in general, granted for overall concepts. They are usually defined by concrete features. There are many, many patents to do with electrically-detonated primers - the inventivity is in the detail of claim 1.

Please also re-post all your typed documents (i.e. your description).