• Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

Measuring speed of the shaft

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
The spear velocity tests conducted by Sergiy Kravchenko some years ago used a "Black Sea" hydropneumatic speargun as the spears of different diameters could be loaded with minimal effort, the charging of the gun being accomplished with the working of the rear mounted hydropump that injected the water that would later drive the spear from the gun. An internal by-pass valve, the "releasing" or "firing" valve in conjunction with the "trigger valve" being open, allowed water injected by muzzle insertion of the spear to pass right through and exit the gun without incurring any loading effort. The only common factor was the diameter of the "charge piston" on the spear tails that carried the sealing "O" ring for the inner barrel bore. This "charge piston" is also the line slide stop and sits in the "drag shadow" of the line slide as the spear flies to the target. A hydropneumatic speargun with a 9 mm bore needs a clearance of about 1 mm for the shaft, so shafts of 8, 7 and 6 mm could be fired from the same gun (or any sizes in-between if they were available). Although I have not heard of much smaller shaft diameters being used it is possible that even smaller shafts could be fired from such a gun, but smaller diameter shafts may whip inside the bore of the inner barrel given enough side clearance to the barrel wall. A version of the gun was available with a 10 mm bore, hence 9 mm shafts could be propelled from that gun, but at the expense of considerable recoil unless the gun was ballasted for such shots.
 
Last edited:
I made some calculations using formulas from Filippo Anglani article. I used results from my measurement data for 7 mm shaft and Cyrano 850 on 25 bar to calculate "k" and "Cb" in formula for energy. Graph for 7 mm shaft should be reliable - accurate. For 6,5 mm and 8 mm I am not sure, maybe they are good, if the formula is good. You can see that the 8 mm shaft would have longer range than 7 mm shaft. From energy I calculated the speed of the shaft.




This might be a speed-distance graph for 9 mm/155 cm shaft (600 g), using the same formula.

It has about 15 m/s and 60 J on 6.5-7 m distance according to calculation.



Most of the graphs I had seen before had almost linear dependence speed-distance. Because this graph is derived from measurement data to 7 mm shaft (334 g) I suppose it is not very accurate. It should be verified by measurement too. The slope of the graph is also highly dependent on the mono line thickness used to tie the shaft to the gun.
 
Last edited:
tromic
the energy and velocity for harpoon 9мм., very greater...
пересчитай through work when charging...
 
Last edited:
tromic
the energy and velocity for harpoon 9мм., very greater...
пересчитай through work when charging...

You are maybe right that it might be higher. I I had exact speed or energy on 5 m or 6 m for 9 mm shaft the graph would be more realistic. Have you any numbers based on measurement?
 
Я давно не измеряю скорость и энергию гарпуна на дистанции...
А использую сравнительный метод...
Результаты выстрела по мишени под водой на заданной дистанции, сравниваю с энергией такого же поражающего эффекта (E= MGH )
А полученные данные использую для коррекции таблицы (xls)...
Это даёт более точные результаты чем измерение скорости...
------------------
I long ago not measure velocity and energy of the harpoon on distances...
But use the comparative method...
The Results of the shot on dartboard under water on given to distances, compare to energy such striking effect (E= MGH ) But got data use for correcting the table (xls)...
This gives the more exact results than speed measurement...
 
Last edited:
Я давно не измеряю скорость и энергию гарпуна на дистанции...
А использую сравнительный метод...
Результаты выстрела по мишени под водой на заданной дистанции, сравниваю с энергией такого же поражающего эффекта (E= MGH )
А полученные данные использую для коррекции таблицы (xls)...
Это даёт более точные результаты чем измерение скорости...
------------------
I long ago not measure velocity and energy of the harpoon on distances...
But use the comparative method...
The Results of the shot on dartboard under water on given to distances, compare to energy such striking effect (E= MGH ) But got data use for correcting the table (xls)...
This gives the more exact results than speed measurement...

What do you think about this graph? This is for same 9 mm shaft, 1550 mm, 600 g. Staring speed 47 m/s.

 
That to value graph, it is necessary to know way of the runaway of the harpoon and power of the charging
----------
Что бы оценить график, нужно знать рабочий ход гарпуна и силу зарядки
 
Last edited:
That to value graph, it is necessary to know way of the runaway of the harpoon and power of the charging
----------
Что бы оценить график, нужно знать рабочий ход гарпуна и силу зарядки

Take Eo = 662 J and Vo = 47 m/s, after shooting.
 
This very big mistake

I find that on italian forum. Speed is too high, i think. That is some computer simulation/calculation. And is seems to be linear dependence, but should be exponential.
 
1J=0,102KgM
662J=67.524KgM
If runaway of the harpoon 1 metre, that power when charging 67.524 KgM...
And this loss-free on friction...
А at shot go the loss on friction and resistance of water...
 
1J=0,102KgM
662J=67.524KgM
If runaway of the harpoon 1 metre, that power when charging 67.524 KgM...
And this loss-free on friction...
А at shot go the loss on friction and resistance of water...

I suppose that gun was for some big fish like tuna.
 
Beside them mistake begins with masses of the harpoon...
His(its) mass not 600гр., but 760гр.
Under such mass of the harpoon and energy 662J, harpoon can not take velocity more 42 m/sec
 
Niko has kindly sent me the information that I recalled seeing some (10!) years ago concerning the velocity of different diameter shafts. The graph is attached and this is what Niko had to say about his pioneering work in this area:-


I have managed to measure the speed of speargun spears along their whole trajectory through the water. The plots show the energy and the speed, respectively, of two different spears, fired from the same gun. Energy and speed are plotted against the distance the spear has travelled. Energy is important, because that tells you how hard the spear is going to hit the fish. Speed is important, because that tells you how quickly the spear is going to get to the fish.

The first part of each curve is the rapid acceleration of the spear in the gun. The gun has a 90cm barrel. The acceleration happens only along about half the barrel, then the spear starts decelerating because of the water drag.

The magenta curves are for a 7mm x 1.3m spear of about 450 gram. The yellow curves are for an 8mm x 1.5m spear of about 600 gram. Since the 8mm spear is heavier, it is slower initially, but far along the range, it is faster - it keeps its speed better. The energy difference is even more significant - after the first 1.5m, the 8mm spear has more energy than the 7mm. The 8mm gets a smaller initial energy than the 7mm, because it has higher drag, but it retains this energy longer, because of its higher mass.

This example illustrates how measurements like these can help a speargun builder decide on parameters like spear dimensions.
- Niko Brummer, March 2001

The spear velocity experiments were conducted with a band gun; the experimental set-up and marked line detector are shown in the attached schematics also provided by Niko. I hope to relocate the pneumatic/hydropneumatic speargun results which also show this effect.

Tests are described here: AQUATECH Speargun
Note 9 mm shaft was fired at 45 m/sec!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: portinfer
Beside them mistake begins with masses of the harpoon...
His(its) mass not 600гр., but 760гр.
Under such mass of the harpoon and energy 662J, harpoon can not take velocity more 42 m/sec

Right, the mass of 9 mm/1550 can not be 600 g but about 770 g.
 
Niko has kindly sent me the information that I recalled seeing some (10!) years ago concerning the velocity of different diameter shafts. The graph is attached and this is what Niko had to say about his pioneering work in this area:-


I have managed to measure the speed of speargun spears along their whole trajectory through the water. The plots show the energy and the speed, respectively, of two different spears, fired from the same gun. Energy and speed are plotted against the distance the spear has travelled. Energy is important, because that tells you how hard the spear is going to hit the fish. Speed is important, because that tells you how quickly the spear is going to get to the fish.

The first part of each curve is the rapid acceleration of the spear in the gun. The gun has a 90cm barrel. The acceleration happens only along about half the barrel, then the spear starts decelerating because of the water drag.

The magenta curves are for a 7mm x 1.3m spear of about 450 gram. The yellow curves are for an 8mm x 1.5m spear of about 600 gram. Since the 8mm spear is heavier, it is slower initially, but far along the range, it is faster - it keeps its speed better. The energy difference is even more significant - after the first 1.5m, the 8mm spear has more energy than the 7mm. The 8mm gets a smaller initial energy than the 7mm, because it has higher drag, but it retains this energy longer, because of its higher mass.

This example illustrates how measurements like these can help a speargun builder decide on parameters like spear dimensions.
- Niko Brummer, March 2001

The spear velocity experiments were conducted with a band gun; the experimental set-up and marked line detector are shown in the attached schematics also provided by Niko. I hope to relocate the pneumatic/hydropneumatic speargun results which also show this effect.

Tests are described here: AQUATECH Speargun
Note 9 mm shaft was fired at 45 m/sec!

Peter, that was an interesting method of speed measurement. I see that the initial energy was lower than usual, less than 100 J, so the initial speed is also low, less than 22 m/s. In such a case the losses are also lower. Max of the energy/speed is on distance less than 0,5 m. That is because that was a band gun 90 cm long. I can recognize the exponential energy to distance dependence, although it is not so obvious because of low starting energy of the shaft. I see one problem with that method. The marked line has additional friction to the Delrin housing with LED and photo transistor. I would maybe take just a small piece of marked line, 20 cm long, and tie it to different places along the main mono, 0 m, 1 m, 2 m 3 m, 4 m ...

On the link you gave, I find an interesting statement: "At identical weight of spears, it is better to use spears with a smaller diameter but longer." Interesting, this is opposite from what Dapiran claimed. :confused:
 
Last edited:
I have always thought that the most interesting aspect is the cross-over of spear velocity ranking with different diameter and weight shafts as shown in the graph provided by Niko. This indicates that the formulae derived spear velocities either do not include some factor, or a change in a known factor with decreasing velocity, which has an effect later in shaft flight as to my knowledge the existing calculations do not predict any cross-over behaviour. It is possible that the line towing capability of the spear is dependent on the energy stored in the shaft and as the shaft slows the energy is more dependent on the mass, hence the heavier shaft can drag the same shooting line further than a lighter shaft. This line towing and the accompanying energy drain caused by it may explain the results where the heavier shaft flies faster at longer range, however it really requires more tests if the behaviour is to be fully explained scientifically. That means the formulae require more work as well to provide a better predictive capability later in shaft flight.

The maximum hydrodynamic drag on the shaft body should be at maximum shaft velocity which will be the muzzle exit velocity as the shaft tail clears the gun, however initially only a small length of shooting line will be travelling at that same velocity. As the line wrap storage system loops are being progressively pulled out more of the line is being accelerated from rest, but at the spear attachment the line is continually slowing with the shaft, so different shooting line segments are travelling at different velocities. We know line texture and diameter has a big effect on flight velocity and as more line is strung out in a straight line behind the spear the contribution to total system drag, i.e. spear and shooting line, may not be adequately predicted if the dynamics of the shooting line are ignored.

The marked line used for timing pulses has no slack loops, so it keeps pace with the shaft. Any marked line drag through the pulse detector should be the same for all shooting tests and therefore will have no effect on the relative results. The advantage of the marked line is that each shot produces a full time history along the shaft flight path thus requiring less shots to build up a large amount of data for subsequent analysis.
 
Peter, that was an interesting method of speed measurement. I see that the initial energy was lower than usual, less than 100 J, so the initial speed is also low, less than 22 m/s. In such a case the losses are also lower. Max of the energy/speed is on distance less than 0,5 m. That is because that was a band gun 90 cm long. I can recognize the exponential energy to distance dependence, although it is not so obvious because of low starting energy of the shaft. I see one problem with that method. The marked line has additional friction to the Delrin housing with LED and photo transistor. I would maybe take just a small piece of marked line, 20 cm long, and tie it to different places along the main mono, 0 m, 1 m, 2 m 3 m, 4 m ...

On the link you gave, I find an interesting statement: "At identical weight of spears, it is better to use spears with a smaller diameter but longer." Interesting, this is opposite from what Dapiran claimed. :confused:

Spears are blasted from the muzzle of the "Black Sea" hydropneumatic gun apparently wreathed inside a cavitation sheath, so this may complicate the shaft drag situation in the early part of shaft flight. Exit velocities around 40 m/sec and almost up to 50 m/sec may therefore contribute to a different drag situation compared to shafts exiting at lower velocities from "normal" band guns, it is an area that requires more study and research. As most divers do not routinely use, or require weapons of such power, the topic may be more of academic rather than practical interest.

The nature of the target may have something to do with this result, the sand filled containers may have less drag on a transitioning shaft as it passes through the sand and plastic walls if the shaft diameter is small. It is a different situation to a shaft burying itself in a wooden target and not passing through that target.
 
Last edited:
Maybe both Sergiy Kravchenko and Dapiran are right. I suppose on short distances, say to 2 - 3 m both shafts 6,5 and 8 mm would have similar energy on target if they had same mass so the thiner would have better penetration though the fish. On longer distances, say 6 m the thicker would have more energy and better penetration despite of higher diameter.

This is a formula from Filippo Anglani about penetration in a tissue of a fish.
I do not know how it is good but it is obvious that thiner shaft would have higher penetration - P (cm), if we compare shafts with same speed (v) on the target:

P = 0.07 * M^1.3 / d * (( v –10) / 25)

M - mass of the shaft (g)
d - diameter of the shaft (mm)
v - speed of the shaft (m/s) on the target.

It is assumed that the minimal speed on the target must be more than 10 m/s.

 
Last edited:
DeeperBlue.com - The Worlds Largest Community Dedicated To Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing

ABOUT US

ISSN 1469-865X | Copyright © 1996 - 2024 deeperblue.net limited.

DeeperBlue.com is the World's Largest Community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving, Ocean Advocacy and Diving Travel.

We've been dedicated to bringing you the freshest news, features and discussions from around the underwater world since 1996.

ADVERT