Good luck with that question… I’ve asked twice and so have other folks on here. It’s just being ignored by Ed. I think the significant differences give a lot of doubt as to the QC in the manufacturing process. In any precision product it is manufactured to exacting tolerances (one would expect) Is it such a complex question to answer by the manufacturer ?? because there clearly is a massive difference here. Ed kindly answer us please.
He said he was shooting it when it happened, but had winter gear on so he came away "shaken not stirred". He also said he didn't blame Edgun. That's about all the info I've seen from him.
That is just artefact of the image. You can ask Marko to make a normal picture of it. Plus to it, there are, looks like, burrs on the part, he didn't remove them by polishing as I did and as you can see at the bottom screenshot.Have I ignored it? Well, I am sorry if I gave you a chance to think that I ignore the "unakward" questoins. I just, really, didn't see it. Anyhow, as I've just said -- imagine if it is a real geometry, how revolving part could be made with such steps, moved in one side, though they should be simmetry from the center of the revolving. Do you get what I mean?
The different high pressure revervoirs have different requirements for calculation and design and different requirement for safety, including the coeficient. And for the reservoirs with the volume less than 1 liter they are different rather than to huge tubes. The same with the standard 6.8 liter tanks, the working pressure 300 bar, test pressure 450 bar, the same as for any air reservoirs for PCP guns. And asking why not 3.5 coeficient that is just... Well, you got it. As we joke here, all those profeccional virusologyst now turned to be the war profeccioanls...You are asking about the 3D models and don't say what programm are you going to use and what math model for simulatoin? Are proffecional in what you are asking?
Nobody can force me to avoid fight, I just love it! When I get the experts' conclusions I will share it with you.I don’t know if it’s lost in translation or deliberately playing emperors clothes .. here is my extremely Crude image- one tube has a nice amount of meat around the base forming a radius - the failed flat bottomed tube does not (irrespective of your nonsensical explanation above). I’ve crudely drawn to demonstrate because I am exhausted how to ask further why their are tube differences as shown!You analyze not the real cut, but the screenshot of the part, made not perpendicular. Look, I just open it in the editor and make the horizontal line, you see it doesn't match the corners. Now have a look at the "steps" and just imagine (in case the shape is really like that) what tool and by what process it could be made, taking into consideration that it is the revolving detail.
View attachment 353378
For flat bottom we use that kind of drill.
View attachment 353398
Have I ignored it? Well, I am sorry if I gave you a chance to think that I ignore the "unakward" questoins. I just, really, didn't see it. Anyhow, as I've just said -- imagine if it is a real geometry, how revolving part could be made with such steps, moved in one side, though they should be simmetry from the center of the revolving. Do you get what I mean?
You are absolutely right and that is what I've tried to bring to
Nobody knows, the expertise is ordered (by they way it cost me 200'000 roubles, about 2'500 USD) and it will be made by the special criminal experts in Moscow, State experts, not the private ones. I do hope they will answer all the questions.
You are asking about the 3D models and don't say what programm are you going to use and what math model for simulatoin? Are proffecional in what you are asking?
OK, guys, I am about to leave for goose hunting, then to abroad trip and in the best case will come back towards the end of May. So, having not hearing me here for next couple weeks or more don't think I am hiding
THIS, it isn't simply a matter of different profile of drill/mill. They are obviously a different depth! One has way less meat!
I haven't seen Ed troll much of anyone. I have seen him respond to the ones trolling him. Plus the the translation issues.
Does .794 safety factor at the corner mean that it will not even hold at the rated pressure? Maybe I am misunderstanding something.Finally had schedules working and got the cylinder parts analyzed.
It is 2024 or equivalent alloy, so in composition should be what Ed says it is.
Material composition, measured with Hitachi Vulcan material analyzer. I can't tell you the temper / aging characteristics.
That would require stress testing and hardness test.
With correct material specs the simulation shows the cylinder should hold everywhere else but at the corner there is a stress riser above the yield strength. But below ultimate tensile strength so the cylinder wont rupture by pressure.
But what about outside force, Like dropping the gun it might cause a fracture in the stress riser and cause a failure later on.
Nonlinear simulation as the material yields.
Simulated at 30Mpa / 300bar
Safety margin 3-6 everywhere else and at the corner 0.794
This is my findings on my limited equipment and crappy Autodesk software under powered computer that calculates the simulations in the cloud.
But at least I have done something other than running my mouth.
Marko
