User talk:Greg Glover

Welcome

 * Glad you could drop by.

Archives

 * User talk:Greg Glover/Archive 1 March 07
 * User talk:Greg Glover/Archive 28 FEB 08

My Personal Sandbox

 * User talk:Greg Glover/sandbox
 * User talk:Greg Glover/boxes

Powder velocity in recoil?
When you created the free recoil page, where did you source the 1585 m/s speed for the powder velocity? I don't doubt its wrong, I'm just trying to understand what numbers are appropriate in various scenarios. Thanks! (I'll watch for a reply here) - Davandron | Talk 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I found an interesting book that seems to cover where the various numbers and ratios for powder velocity have come from and I'll update the recoil page with this info and citation. - Davandron | Talk 05:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply Here
here

Wildcat
Replied here. Sounds like a misunderstanding. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  21:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, but it could be awhile yet. I can't claim real expertise, tho, so given your greater experience, you might want to sandbox a draft of it & let me have a look. (I will claim being a better than average writer among WP editors, in all modesty. That's my area. ;) )  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  00:53 & 00:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Deal. Everybody's got talents. Mine include being able to screw up the technology of a pencil. ;D  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  02:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One other thought. If you want, you can just create a temp sandbox & post a link right to it, like this.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right on acceptance of rounds developed by companies, as opposed to individuals, as "standard" or "factory" loads, despite how they may be labelled sometimes, so I'd agree, leave it out. I'd also agree the engineering isn't needed, & in some ways might be over the head of the average reader. (If you want to take on a separate, more technical article, such as "Engineering of wildcat ammunition", that can link out from Wildcat, be my guest; don't ask me to help past "is it understandable to the average interested reader" (rather than Joe Average, who's likely to be lost entirely), 'cause I don't claim sufficient knowledge. Nor can I point you to anybody who has; if you decide on that, I'd post a request here. Finally, I think you're right, the average wildcatter is far & away more likely to be a tinkerer judging rounds on MV, ME, & case quality (does it look stressed?) than on careful engineering (tho from what I've read, there are those who do take the trouble to measure things like CUP). If you capture the typical, but mention some of the technical issues, like chamber pressure/overpressure, slamming/receiver stress (raised on the .45 J-Mag, for 1), & headspacing, & why they're significant, given you keep it not too "engineerspeak", I think you're OK.
 * I do think there's room on WP for an engineering-style page as you suggest, so I wouldn't argue against it; I only think the audience is pretty small, so I wouldn't put it high on my priorities. I could be wrong about the interest level, tho. One other thought in that area. It might be able to cover things like prototyping military ammo, which would (unless I'm very much mistaken) require specialised gear & rigorous standards. (I think in particular about the development of the .276 rounds proposed for the M1, & why they failed acceptance.) That would be of interest here, so I'd post a notice there, too. Also, as I think of it, here & here, too.
 * As for sandboxing & linking, open up your userpage (or talk page, wherever you want it), copy your existing sandbox link, & just change "sandbox" to (say) "wildcat" (like this: User:Trekphiler/Sandbox to this: [ [User:Trekphiler/Wildcat]] ) & it'll give you an open redlink you can then use to rough draft it. Linking me to it then is EZ, just do this: go here . Clear? (Or am I explaining something you've already figured out? ;D)
 * Looking forward to seeing what you've got.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  20:49, 20:54 & 21:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

newton meter
I received you comment. thank you. As for the equation I found it in wikipedia and saved it to view later. I use the same units as sir Isac Newton the pound is a force, foot is length , time is a second. he left mass as a combined unit.(pound sec sec)/ft. whats good enough for newton is good enough for me.

I think people delete you adds in foot pound force (sic) because there is now need to complicate the physics concept of work by introducing mass. take a look at the newton meter, this is the same concept in the SI units. the article is clean and easy to understand.

$$Force (lbf) = \frac{M (lbm) \times g(ft/sec^2)}{32.17405(lbm ft/lbf sec^2) } $$

$$mass=\frac{Force(lbf)}{g(ft/sec^2)}= \frac{ M(lbm)}{32.17405(lbm ft/lbf sec^2) }$$ the second equation is obtained by dividing both sides by g and is the mass .(all of it not just the numerator )


 * please tell me the if kg/m^2 and lb/in^2 measure the same physical property ?
 * what is the maximum breach pressure in Kg/m^2

--Dorminton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

FPS Task force proposal
Abandoned due to lack of interest.

Original

 * $$\begin{align}

1\,\mathrm{lb}_F &= 1\,\mathrm{lb}_m \cdot g_n \\ &= 1\,\mathrm{lb}_m \cdot 32.174049\,\mathrm{\tfrac{ft}{s^2}}\\ &= 32.174049\,\mathrm{\tfrac{lb_m ft}{s^2}}\\ &= 0.45359237\,\mathrm{kg} \cdot 9.80665\,\mathrm{\tfrac{m}{s^2}}\\ &= 4.4482216152605\,\mathrm{N} (\mbox{exact})\end{align}$$

New

 * $$\begin{align}

1\,\mathrm{lb}_F &= 1\,\mathrm{lb}_m \cdot g_n \\ &= 1\,\mathrm{lb}_m \cdot 32.174049\,\mathrm{\tfrac{ft}{s^2}}\\ &= 32.174049\,\mathrm{\tfrac{lb_m ft}{s^2}}\end{align}$$


 * $$\begin{align}

Or\end{align}$$


 * $$\begin{align}

1\,\mathrm{lb}_F &= 0.45359237\,\mathrm{kg} \cdot 9.80665\,\mathrm{\tfrac{m}{s^2}}\\ &= 4.4482216152605\,\mathrm{N} (\mbox{exact})\end{align}$$

Revert
This edit reverted the previous edit, but your edit summary describes the next edit, without mentioning reverting or removing. Did you intend to remove the paragraph? Art LaPella (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No There was some sort of edit conflict. If that is the right paragraph then all I was doing was fixing a missspeling. Thank you Greg Glover (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)