No, your analysis is incorrect. That force is the capture force that tends to counteract the moment force.
Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
No, it's a "iGauging" scope. About $30. The graticule seems to be off by a thousandth or two, but that can be worked around, once you know the error. I think the error can possibly be adjusted out by moving the objective lens, which is threaded into position. The threaded adjustment is likely there for focusing purposes. The bottom end was cut at an angle to allow light to enter. The bottom tip seemed to be right at the focal point. So apparently you could just rest the bottom tip on the object, and it would be in focus. I am using it in a stand with a rack adjustment for focusing, so I turned the end down square. Also lets a lot more light in, which they need.That 40x pen scope is a great idea. Is that the one from Brownells? I have seen it many times. I don't know why I didn't think of that. I'm getting slow.
I also saw those as potential problems. One has to rely on the fixture and sear dimensions being correct. With the Brownells fixture in its original form, I had to use a shim much larger than the .020" to get the face angle correct. A casual user would have no idea that the finished angle was wrong by simply following the instructions. Mine did appear to be out of spec. I checked it, but not everyone will. Rather than return or exchange it, I decided to use it as a base for my own fixture.Have people been getting poor trigger jobs because the instructions that come with the various jigs assume sears have sharp points at the edge edge??
Also all the jigs I have seen bank the sear against a feature on the jig (the set screw). But what about the feature on the sear that banks against the jig. All these sear features only touch air. Why should a sear manufacturer hold one of these feature to +/- 0.001 or even +/- 0.005" . There is no inspection of these parts to see if ALL dimensions are within spec. If a manufacturer missed a dimension no one would know as the feature only touches air and thus the sear works fine. These sear features have a much shorter distance to sear center then the sear's flat. Thus an error on the sear feature magnifies the error in location of the 90 deg vertex.
Yes, and you can actually watch that happen. At some minimum speed that effect stops and the reading stabilizes. At different pull speeds, I'm not sure I see any difference in pull force. If there is any speed dependance, it's not proportional.The erratic reading was likely slip-stick induced by the low stiffness of the spring in your pull gage. One pulls on the gage and the spring elongates. The elongation of the spring is such that its force matches then exceeds static friction. The object breaks free and now a lower dynamic friction occurs. At the instant the spring is still applying the force needed to exceed static friction. The force imbalance on the object has the object to accelerate. The object temporarily exceeds the velocity you are pulling the gage. The elongation of the spring drops, the spring's force drops, spring force now is below that for dynamic friction, the object stops moving, the cycle repeats.
The signal was not only tiny, it was also in the presence of extremely high voltages and magnetic fields (particle accelerators, commonly known as atom smashers). It was measuring the charge left in a detector when an atomic particle flew through it.Signal averaging will definitely reduce noise. However it relies on a repetitive signal to average out the random noise. Thus your one shot measurement was likely difficult to get as it was non-repetitive.
It might be better to just sample as fast as reasonably possible, and then smooth the data afterward.We could over-sample our one shot trigger pull but care is needed. The trigger is moving during the sampling and if not careful we could average out useful information. Also noise could be in-band and thus indistinguishable from actual signal. Sampling here acts as a low pass filter. We don't want to set the filter to low and loose signal. These are the issues that drive experimentalists mad.
If the noise is purely electronic I have found battery powering the sensors with good shielding and single point grounds cut it down a lot without resorting to electronic (or digital) filters or over-sampling.
No doubt.We are going to get a lot of caterwauling about crazy impractical engineers over this post....
Nope.No, your analysis is incorrect. That force is the capture force that tends to counteract the moment force.
Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
I think the quest for understanding was lost in the math long ago. The hobbyists and pro’s utilize an understanding of the mechanism to perform the operations for desired results.Like Log I’m waiting for this to be a gunsmithing thread. I’m sure this discussion might benefit someone. I just haven’t figured out who that is yet.
Maybe an astrophysicist who builds 1911’s on the weekends? All I’m saying is the average person who builds 1911’s as a hobby or profession isn’t getting anything they can really apply practically. And I’ve always felt that is the true nature of this subforum. The practical application of gunsmithing
It's not nonsensical at all.No, but it would stand still at the point it was forced too, and the point, of a sear snapping out due to the fact we do have enough friction for the force to be built up to a point of release. If the hammer hooks slide down the face of the sear primary, and they can, the trigger force could then be released and the hammer would not fall, nor would the sear reset itself, unless the hammer was cocked back to allow it too. You can force this to happen with an overcut thumb safety. However if when watching the sear and pulling the trigger as I have described at least twice in this thread and the sear cannot be seen to move it will have a crisp trigger, if you can see it you could then also relax after a force was applied and the sear would hold the hammer in the position it was moved too, not a crisp trigger.
You have stated that your 87º whose primary center is the shortest distance to the sear pin center does indeed has a hesitation, not unlike a 2 stage trigger as the escape edge is higher than the center. This is an example of a sear that can be seen moving when the trigger is pulled and will stay at the at the first hesitation point if the force on the trigger is relaxed. Of what value do you claim this has. A #5-#7 trigger is easy if desired without having a built in hesitation point.
So this is kind of the point of frustration, zero friction isn't going to happen, and nothing has been said if it is also in a zero gravity condition, or if the pistol in this questionable condition is pointing upwards or downwards, or ? So it is a nonsensical statement to begin with. If it was relevant how far would a bullet travel if the barrel and bullet didn't have any friction, and if at the same there wasn't any friction between the soles of your shoes and you were standing on a slight decline, I'm sure it could be calculated, but its relevance isn't even of any interest.
This is something I'm sure others have done long ago, but had never heard of it when I was contemplating trigger work and the balance of the contributing aspects of the trigger force required. And I mentioned it here years ago, NE will remember when I first suggested this to him and another member Russ.Here’s a question for the group. Is talking about how the components work outside of its design function even worth discussing?
How do the parts function without the sear spring? What difference does it make since it operates with a spring?
So does, if there wasn't any friction between the bullet and the barrel bore, what would be the bullets velocity? This could be calculated and sure you could, but would it be relevant in any way to gunsmithing, except to verify to those who wanted to know something that is an antidote at best.It's not nonsensical at all.
I am trying to see if I understand the non frictional forces. The lack of friction might be hypothetical, but the remaining forces are not.
There is either a net force inward or there isn't.
My question has a definite answer.
I have a fixture that I made for use on a microscope stage, and have made lots of observations of the engagement.So does, if there wasn't any friction between the bullet and the barrel bore, what would be the bullets velocity? This could be calculated and sure you could, but would it be relevant in any way to gunsmithing, except to verify to those who wanted to know something that is an antidote at best.
A slingshot under those conditions would be a better choice.
In regards to the sear and hammer question, I implore you to play a little with the sear and hammer on a fixture such as pictured, or on the side of the frame with test pins designed for this purpose and satisfy for yourself just how the sear and hammer interact. Can you do it without friction, no, I don't believe you can, but you can develop an opinion based on the experience as to whether it is stable, or not stable. That's relevant, and has an answer,
Of course not, get real, the landing spot of the hammer hook tips is higher so snapping back would only happen if the sear was improperly cut, you know this and have done this. Why ask an irrelevant question whose answer is obvious? Of course if the sear spring was present and the hammer were pulled back a little it would, wouldn't it?I have a fixture that I made for use on a microscope stage, and have made lots of observations of the engagement.
I have also manually staged sears at various points of engagement, and it was stable at all points.
My question hasn't been answered though.
Is there a net force pulling the sear inward?
And in the absence of friction would it therefore snap back in if pulled out slightly?
Thank you. And you're right, I know all that.Of course not, get real, the landing spot of the hammer hook tips is higher so snapping back would only happen if the sear was improperly cut, you know this and have done this. Why ask an irrelevant question whose answer is obvious? Of course if the sear spring was present and the hammer were pulled back a little it would, wouldn't it?
I do believe there can be a proclivity by the hammer hook tips to snug up the sear, if you will, but actually hold it, I do not believe so, the sear holds the hammer in the cocked position and if the sear is as it should be the spot the hooks land on is higher, how much depends on how much engagement.Thank you. And you're right, I know all that.
There is apparently differing beliefs about whether there is a force pulling the sear into engagement. It would be good if it was resolved.