Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 62

Thread: BLACKOUT vs BE Meyers -- drop test

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0

    BLACKOUT vs BE Meyers -- drop test

    I did FEA to simulate putting 100 lbs of force onto the end of one of the prongs for both a BE Meyers and BLACKOUT flash suppressor. Both were simulated using the same settings and type of material. In this simulation they were both set up as plain carbon steel as the point was just to compare the geometry.


    BLACKOUT:
    Lowest factor of safety: 1.33
    Max von Mises Stress: 1.65929e+008 N/m^2
    Max displacement: 0.147 mm


    BE Meyers
    Lowest factor of safety: 0.41
    Max von Mises Stress:5.39317e+008 N/m^2
    Max displacement: 0.528 mm

    Conclusion:
    BLACKOUT had a factor of safety that was 3.25 times higher.
    Stress in BLACKOUT was 3.25 times lower.
    BE Meyers prong was displaced 3.59 times further distance
    Last edited by rsilvers; 02-26-08 at 17:40.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    356
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    I did FEA to simulate putting 100 lbs of force onto the end of one of the prongs for both a BE Meyers and BLACKOUT flash suppressor. Both were simulated using the same settings and type of material.


    BLACKOUT:
    Lowest factor of safety: 1.33
    Max von Mises Stress: 1.65929e+008 N/m^2
    Max displacement: 0.147 mm


    BE Meyers
    Lowest factor of safety: 0.41
    Max von Mises Stress:5.39317e+008 N/m^2
    Max displacement: 0.528 mm

    Conclusion:
    BLACKOUT had a factor of safety that was 3.25 times higher.
    Stress in BLACKOUT was 3.25 times lower.
    BE Meyers prong was displaced 3.59 times further distance
    The model looks like both FHs are InOp after the simulation. How about a real life drop test?

    Is it just a coincidence that AAC is releasing destructive test results on the heals of the BE Meyers/SF product announcement?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    I really just gave the images so you could see the models. You have to look at the 'deformation scale' in the upper left of each image. That shows you how many times enhanced the deformation is.

    The BLACKOUT actually would be deformed 51.5 times less than you see in the image. The BE Meyers would be deformed 16.1 times less than you see in the image.

    The images are just to show stress distribution. For the actual results, it is better to just use the numeric data.

    As for Surefire -- we think the BE Meyers is a better flash suppressor than they had before and it is a step up for Surefire to work with them.
    Last edited by rsilvers; 02-26-08 at 16:17.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    356
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    For the actual results, it is better to just use the numeric data.
    Seems to me it would be better to use real life results instead of computer modeling. This could potentially hurt BE Meyers reputation with as little as a trumped up computer simulation.

    Personally I find it a bit tacky when a company publishes negative test data on its competition the way you're doing here. Business as usual though, right?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    This is a technical forum and this is a highly technical post. I find it interesting.

    I have been wondering for a long time. Is that your photo in your avatar, or is that a character from some movie?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,291
    Feedback Score
    0
    How 'bout them Padres?

    This is a technical forum and this is a highly technical post. I find it interesting.
    You also have a vested interest in the results. A person might draw the conclusion that your computer simulation is not objective. Business as usual.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    As always, you are welcome to duplicate my results. I always describe my methods so that others may try the same test.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    356
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rsilvers View Post
    This is a technical forum and this is a highly technical post. I find it interesting.
    The problem is that you have just made an allegation against your competitor without showing an actual test. This forum is unique in that technical posts should be first hand.

    Posting Suggestions

    In order to maintain a site that is an effective database of good information, it is best to post information that you have first hand knowledge of. If you are repeating information that you have been told or have read from another poster, it is best to disclose that in the opening of the post.
    You posted a simulation, not a real test.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,705
    Feedback Score
    0
    My analysis could not be more first hand. I did it myself.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    5,963
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Rob, thanks for showing the modeling. We appreciate your firsthand testing.

    Any plans to do an actual drop test? Or is one already been recorded?

    Thanks.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •