(5/6/19 update) Moderator Design, Testing, and Evaluation (the big test)

Forums PCP Airguns (5/6/19 update) Moderator Design, Testing, and Evaluation (the big test)

  • Views : 6775
  • Link

    STO
    Participant
    Member

     

    Just as you said, hair curlers and washer baffles. Beyond that, the one thing that really jumps out at me is the length of the Weihrauch moderator. With that kind of design I would guess length is a critical factor, not just total volume. If that really is magically effective, it certainly is easy to replicate. 

    Link

    Macros
    Participant
    Member

    Agreed I think the length has something to do with it. Odd thing is that with the huggett magna and several others I've tried, the length is similar or greater, yet they are less effective, again befuddling me. That said the magna and the others are significantly fatter than the weihrauch. Leads me to wonder if there may be something of an ideal ratio of diameter to length that plays a part? Some have also had luck further quieting their silencers with different high surface area dampening material inside, but that seems to be contentious and I have never personally found repacking a silencer to provide any real benefit. 

    Now I think about it, there was one silencer I had for a short while that was at least subjectively quieter than a weihrauch. Slightly bigger but similar overall form. Got it with a second hand gun I bought. Completely made from plastic and delrin but absolutely deadly quiet. I do think that aluminium and other metals may well be suboptimal materials for airgun silencers, with a 'bell like' effect, but we expect metal thanks to firearms and mostly regard plastic stuff as cheap junk. Your comment in your first post about ABS rings true, in that it's impact resistance helps. In part I'm sure that's because of the slight 'give' that plastics have which ought to be instrumental in sound dampening. The carbon outer makes a lot of sense for this reason too.

    Yikes, I'm going to blame you when my wife yells at me because I'm rabidly designing and printing my far less impressive attempts at silencers late into the night after my resolve cracks 😂😂😂😂 You can probably guess I have difficult neighbours too!

    Link

    STO
    Participant
    Member

    Okay, so, this update is way overdue. I blame the weather and short day lengths. I feel like it has been raining for weeks now. And audio equipment obviously doesn't work well in the rain. Anyway I finally got a buddy to come help me and we set everything up, recorded the data, digested the data, and then I sat down to bang out this not-short overview of it all.

    So measurement-wise, I went with the suppressor industry standard which is 1.6 meters off the ground, and muzzle 1 meter from the mic. This is done with two tripods, one holding the pickups the other justifying the muzzle of the gun. This assures things are the same every time. Consistency is close to godliness, and if your data is a mess good luck getting anything useful from it. The gun is my FX Crown .22 shooting Crossman Premier HPs, and while I didn't chrono the Crossmans it spits JSB 18.13s at 874fps with +/-3FPS on average. Each configuration was fired 5 times. Six configurations total were tested and they are as follows:

    Shroud Collapsed
    Shroud Extended
    Copper Gas Diode (copper references color, not material)
    Silver Gas Diode
    Clipped Conical Flow-Through
    Foam

     

    Here is what a typical sound data sampling looks like:

    Aside from having exceptional sampling resolution, 250MSa/s that is to say 250000000 samples per second making it able to sample very very brief sound occurrence, it also can provide other interpreted data such as the most prevalent frequency, the overall length and shape of the event, etc. It is very handy, particularly when developing moderators rather than just comparing them. As you can see each sample has a LOT of data in it, multiple channels, the full spicy chalupa. The result is that, rather than a typical sound meter which is sampling one event one time, each value I present below represents multiple simultaneous samplings of each event (a shot), that event is then repeated (five times per configuration, five shots), and it all is recorded. The result is that there is an immense amount of data generated here, and then has to be post-processed, which is all ultimately distilled down into a single average of the multiple samplings of multiple events. Because my calibration is well out of date, rather than then converting to decibels which would be wrong, I just left them as unit-less numbers. This is perfectly fine for the purposes of this comparison, since I doubt anyone else is running a Bruel & Kjaer to produce assuredly accurate numbers anyway. I realize it is all a bit complicated, but hopefully the single value makes it easy and simple. Side note, these aren't powder burners, so there is no first round pop, and because regs are imperfect on the first shot after storage the gun was cycled to “warm it up” prior to testing.

    Less handy were the two el-cheapo meters I had running. I've seen a lot of people taking measurements on airguns and posting it on youtube with these inexpensive meters. When last I did this it was with firearms, and years ago, so I thought maybe just MAYBE newer meters had the resolution and range to measure airguns. Several reviews on the new meter I picked up even said that it "worked great on airguns," one even claimed it compared favorably to an "expensive German meter" on airguns. While I can't speak for every meter out there, having done the testing I can now confidently say that this is not the case on this meter at least, and that while the meter will pop SOME number in response to every shot, and they're remarkably consistent, whatever it is reading isn't the muzzle report. How do I know this? Because every single configuration was within margin of error of each other. That meter claimed every configuration was about 97db average. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. I don't know what it was reading, but it sure wasn't the muzzle. *shrug*

     

    Shroud Collapsed – 728
    Pretty much what you'd expect here, or rather if you own a Crown, exactly what you've come to know and love. That predictable loud bark. This is easily the loudest test in this series. And it is quite messy, again as you'd expect, because there really is no damping or anything of the sort. Presumably that pressure wave can ricochet up and down the shroud as many times as it wants puffing out the muzzle bit by bit. I'm guessing, just guessing, that the brake and shroud cap act as one in the collapsed position, so there really is nothing here just a reflective tube at both ends. It is possible that by modifying the action end of the shroud stop some significant gains could be seen here, so it isn't just a big sounding tube. Dampers like this could be designed for dual effect, to both eat barrel vibration (improve accuracy) and sound. This might be worth exploring, along with perhaps venting the rear of the Crown shroud…… or alternately replacing the stock shroud entirely with a lighter weight carbon fiber one that is an integral part of the entire sound dampening and accurizing strategy.

     

    Shroud Extended – 312
    Again what you'd expect. It is considerably quieter than the shroud collapsed both because of greater muzzle-forward volume, and it tapers more rapidly because the brake now can act as a choke point between the two chambers as the pressure wave bounces forward and backward. Notice the secondary spike in there. A little napkin math correlates this with the speed of sound traveling the length of the shroud. Cool stuff huh? It is possible, given a longer sampling time, we'd have seen more descending spikes tapering off.

     

    Clipped Conical Flow-Through – 346
    So this was kind of a flow-through outer shell take on the suppressor industry standard of the clipped conical baffle. The clipping diverts flow laterally, making it quieter than your typical symmetrical conical baffle, however it comes with POI shift as I discovered….. in fact over 4 MILs of “repeatable” POI shift. There were two problems with this though, the first that is in pellets this kind of POI shift is destabilizing so it'll cost you some accuracy (unacceptable), and second the crown's shroud is free rotating so any repeatability is also thrown out the window. Hence I didn't do a second pure clipped conical design, because whats the point? Speaking of whats the point, after looking at the numbers you'd have to ask whats the point of this design? It is quieter than the shroud extended, but not by a lot. Given that it is physically the longest design tested by a few milimeters, and has the most baffles, I think we can pass on this conical baffle design for further exploration. It is easy to machine though, so I can see why it is popular.

     

    Foam Fill – 204
    Now things are getting interesting. This is my attempt at good performance analogue for the all-too-common foam/felt hair curlers and washer baffles design. It is a relatively thin layer of foam constrained toward the outer surface of the suppressor and exposes maximum surface area, more than the Weilrauch's design. The muzzle end uses the same cap design as all the others, and the threaded rear uses the same flow-through design. To the ear, both my friend and I agreed this design could be the quietest of all six tests. It is hard to tell with these things, so we both were eager to see the numbers, but we both bet that this would win…. somewhat to my chagrin. Looking at the pressure wave, it is very obvious how it peaks very strongly and cleanly initially, and tapers off very quickly. This could be thought of as the visual equivalent of a clean sound moderator, pop and done. We'll get back to this, it becomes important later.

     

    Gas Diodes
    Cu – 192
    Ag – 194

    I combined these, as they're identical designs in essentially identical materials. (just differing color) In essence, they should be the same, and testing bore that out. It is always nice though when something pans out, in this case repeatable manufacturing being repeatable and performing consistently. By now you've seen that the numbers are lower, so the moderator is in fact quieter! All my crazy scheming worked. Why then did we both think the foamie was quieter? Remember when I said the human ear is really bad at judging sound pressure level? Well that certainly has something to do with it, your ear just can't tell what is louder than what very effectively, in much the same way your eye can't easily judge how heavy a cow is but a scale can do it accurately all day every day. There is another element I think is at play here though. The foamie had a higher initial spike, with no complex architecture to retard it, however once that passed through it tapered rapidly. The gas diode conversely shows that it is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to be doing: extending the length of the event by holding that pressure and releasing it slowly. This means it produces sound for longer, which is a good way to fool an ear into thinking something is louder. A hammer hitting a nail doesn't sound that loud, but make something that loud continuous and you'll find it deafening. While that is an extreme example, it illustrates the point quite nicely how something which is quieter but lasts a little longer can sound about the same or even slightly louder than something which is technically louder than it is.

     

    So there it is, in its full spicy glory. As with everything in life and science, the answer only raises more questions, more avenues of inquiry. But for now I've accomplished what I set out to do, and to my pleasure and surprise the countless hours of designing and testing and revising all built on a harebrained idea borrowed from the eccentric genius Nikola Tesla from a century and a half ago.

    Link

    DHart
    Participant
    Member

    I've noticed in my own testing that a Huggett of about 8 ci volume – with a vented first chamber – is approximately as effective in reducing air rifle report (measured in db) as a Shogun moderator which has twice the internal volume (about 16 ci), but lacks the venting along the body of the moderator.

    What value would you ascribe to having the first chamber in a moderator be vented, as the Huggett design exhibits?

    Link

    Mendopellet
    Participant
    Member

    I had an infuriating experience, trying to discern just exactly what works and doesn't on airgun moderators. So I made several size moderators, with completely changeable internals, keeping all else the same. I think I tried EVERY possible internal design of baffles and baffle placement. NO MATTER WHAT I tried, it was not volume that made the largest difference. 

    It was washers of F1 felt that made it the quietest.

    This should not have surprised me. The single quietest moderator I ever didn't hear, was a 9" x 1.25" Ripley moderator, on a Ripley XL9 in .22 at 50 fpe. There was simply ZERO sound when fired. It was spooky. BUT, that large volume was not the reason! Because the only thing inside the Ripley mod, was 5 to 7simple washers (looked like fender washers)And a lot of 3/4" wide circles of F1 felt. Here is the confusing part … The felt washers only had an inner diameter of about 1/2". Killing the original large volume of the shroud effectively. I do not remember who, but someone used to make 7" x 1" carbon fiber moderatos, with F1 felt washers inside. They were also stupidly quiet. Which leads me to think it is not so much the air blast itself which is the most critical, but probably the frequencies the air blast creates. I believe the felt absorbs the frequency which we perceive as loudness. But have no science to back that up.

        I also experimented heavily with trying to turn air flow extremely in other directions. When making full shrouds, I discovered with perfect baffle placement, you can turn around SO much of the air, that the small rear air vents on a shroud can actually bark like a muzzle blast! I had TOO much air going backwards. I solved this by cutting large 3/8" size holes in the rear by the action, BUT then stuffing different amounts of the foam they put inside pellet tins, until the blast from the two holes was it's quietest. This allowed me to make shroud which are very, very quiet with only 3.5" in front of the muzzle!

    What does all of  this mean ?  Absolutely NO clue. Because what I learned the most from my experiments, was NOTHING seemed to make constant, claimable results in regards to what makes a moderator the quietest, with exception of SOME use of felt. Which I would say is probably why the current pinnacle of moderator design IS some use of felt. See Hugget and HW mods, which we all know work well …. FELT.

    These are only MY opinions and findings. HTH 

    Link

    STO
    Participant
    Member

    DHart

    I've noticed in my own testing that a Huggett of about 8 ci volume – with a vented first chamber – is approximately as effective in reducing air rifle report (measured in db) as a Shogun moderator which has twice the internal volume (about 16 ci), but lacks the venting along the body of the moderator.

    What value would you ascribe to having the first chamber in a moderator be vented, as the Huggett design exhibits?

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the Shogun is vented through a series of small holes at the distal end of the moderator? The sound deadening capability is likely down to a wide variety of factors, however I'd hypothesize that the first chamber venting of the Hugget is to effectively increase the moderator's acting internal volume. Sort of a different way of doing what I did, so while I used a forward flow path (aim the noise away from the shooter, and disrupt the pressure wave at the muzzle) he vented to atmosphere right at the "blast chamber." This might have accuracy advantages as it reduces pressure/turbulence in the blast chamber area which would otherwise be disruptive to the pellet. Depending on what kind of sound escapes through those holes, and how you're measuring it, I would expect it to make the moderator seem quieter or potentially louder. It is hard to say without having personally tried it, and even then this is an area of design with just as much voodoo as science. 

     

    Mendopellet

    I had an infuriating experience, trying to discern just exactly what works and doesn't on airgun moderators. So I made several size moderators, with completely changeable internals, keeping all else the same. I think I tried EVERY possible internal design of baffles and baffle placement. NO MATTER WHAT I tried, it was not volume that made the largest difference. 

    What were you measuring with out of curiosity? As I said above, there are equal amounts of science and voodoo in this game. Some things are complicated with good sounding reasons behind why they work, other things are simple and just seem to work anyway. The difficulty in generating accurate measurements doesn't make the problem any easier. *shrug* 

    Link

    Mendopellet
    Participant
    Member

    Mr. Hart. I was using a GK sound meter at two different distances. VERY accurate meter.

    Link

    ackuric
    Participant
    Member

    My telescoping moderator has 6 baffles, and when collapsed the volume is very small, to the order of 10 cc's~. The sound reduction is also minimal, 1-2 db at best…but once I extend the moderator which adds NO baffles and ONLY volume, roughly 55 cc's…the db reduction is increased 200%…

     

    So what does the above conclude to me? Nothing…I think LENGTH matters more than anything, as it is TIME that you're combating the most with sound reduction, the air is moving very quickly and the longer the length of tube the air travels the more it can dissipate…JMO. 

    Just think of a 20 foot length moderator, only the few first inches need baffles, the rest would allow the air to dissipate to nearly atmospheric to where you only here projectile exiting..again JMO

     

    When length is a limiting factor, I certainly believe one baffle design may be superior to another but marginally so when compared to changing length.

    Link

    DHart
    Participant
    Member

    DHart said:

    I've noticed in my own testing that a Huggett of about 8 ci volume – with a vented first chamber – is approximately as effective in reducing air rifle report (measured in db) as a Shogun moderator which has twice the internal volume (about 16 ci), but lacks the venting along the body of the moderator.

    What value would you ascribe to having the first chamber in a moderator be vented, as the Huggett design exhibits?

    STO said:

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the Shogun is vented through a series of small holes at the distal end of the moderator? The sound deadening capability is likely down to a wide variety of factors, however I'd hypothesize that the first chamber venting of the Hugget is to effectively increase the moderator's acting internal volume. Sort of a different way of doing what I did, so while I used a forward flow path (aim the noise away from the shooter, and disrupt the pressure wave at the muzzle) he vented to atmosphere right at the "blast chamber." This might have accuracy advantages as it reduces pressure/turbulence in the blast chamber area which would otherwise be disruptive to the pellet. Depending on what kind of sound escapes through those holes, and how you're measuring it, I would expect it to make the moderator seem quieter or potentially louder. It is hard to say without having personally tried it, and even then this is an area of design with just as much voodoo as science. 

     

    There are no venting holes on the distal, nor the proximal, ends of the Shogun.  There are, however, a small number of very, very tiny holes (barely noticeable visually) on the body of the tube.  It would seem like these holes would probably be more effective were they somewhat larger, but perhaps they at least help reduce the sound level slightly more than if they were not present.  The Huggett has a substantial area of venting (quite significantly more than the Shogun), which is situated around the first chamber.

    To the ear, there is not a significant amount of sound moderation difference between the 8 ci volume Huggett and the 16 ci volume Shogun.  So, total internal volume appears to play a very minor role in this particular comparison.  

    Though the Huggett is more money, it's also a lot lighter, sleeker/slimmer (much more "svelt"), and is similarly effective (more or less, depending on what rifle is used for testing) when judged by the human ears.  

    On my Bantam Sniper .22, the Huggett seems to beat the Shogun slightly in noise reduction (low cost SPL meter app confirms this subjective observation).  On my Red Wolf .22HP (on LOW power), the Shogun seems to beat the Huggett slightly in noise reduction (again, a low cost SPL meter app confirms this subjective observation, as well). Neither is significantly more effective in noise reduction, to the human ear, than the other, when used on these two rifles.  Results may, of course, differ when shooting larger calibers, or stepping down to a lower power .177, where they may exhibit no difference to the human ear.

    Link

    STO
    Participant
    Member

    ackuric

    So what does the above conclude to me? Nothing…I think LENGTH matters more than anything, as it is TIME that you're combating the most with sound reduction, the air is moving very quickly and the longer the length of tube the air travels the more it can dissipate…JMO. 

    Just think of a 20 foot length moderator, only the few first inches need baffles, the rest would allow the air to dissipate to nearly atmospheric to where you only here projectile exiting..again JMO

     

    When length is a limiting factor, I certainly believe one baffle design may be superior to another but marginally so when compared to changing length.

    So now we're really getting down to the lumps and warts on the pickle of the problem. You are very possibly right with airgun moderators, length is the best and easiest way to cut sound. I don't want my gun long though, I want it short. It is also easier, cheaper, and faster to design small, which can be scaled up later. So for now I'm going to keep the short 120mm size I'm experimenting with. I may well make a scaled up version for myself later though. The bullpup craze also seems to suggest I'm not totally crazy for wanting to keep my airgun short, other people do too. *shrug* Its not a perfect world, a big moderator would be a lot easier, but whats the fun in easy anyway? The thrill is in the chase, the fun is in seeing if I can optimize a small moderator to be more effective which in theory I can apply to make a bigger moderator more effective too. 

     

    In that vein, the clipped conical moderator increases gun length by about 120mm and measured 346. Extending the shroud increases gun length by half that, only 60mm, and measured 312. I have some hypotheses for why this might be, but if nothing else I've proven I can make a louder and less effective moderator design which is which is twice as long! :P And lets remember, conical baffles are the most common style you see, in everything from airguns to firearms. *shrug* 

    Link

    Mendopellet
    Participant
    Member

    I have found you can make a quiet moderator on a FAC 30 fpe or less gun, with only a 5" moderator, IF you get the first baffle space correct, and use F1 felt throughout. Of course, a longer one of the same design will be quieter. 

    I found I can turn around a crazy amount of air with a shroud. With the first baffle being no more than 1.25" from the muzzle. I found this out by accident on a crazy whim … I had issues making a particular shroud quiet enough, when I wanted only 3.75" of shroud in front of the muzzle. So figuring the shroud was going to have to be scrapped, and a longer one made, I tried drilling out  the two rear vent holes by the breech, to a crazy 3/8" ole size. I suddenly had a CANNON blast near the breech end. I was shocked so much air could go backwards. So I started plugging those two holes with some of the foam that comes in the top of pellet tins, and essentially experimented until I found the amount of foam which made the shroud the quietest. In front of the first baffle, I placed only one more baffle, and filled both front 1.25" chambers with F1 felt, and found the gun to be crazy quiet at 30 fpe. and 950 fpe.

    That first baffle placement is really important, in my own findings. I also found differently shaped baffles were rendered useless when using F1 felt. I also found the exit hole on a baffle should be conically shaped, where air can expand outward more easily, instead of as straight ahead. This directs more of the air blast into the felt. 

    But these are just my findings. And I am sure there are MANY ways to accomplish the same goal. I look forward to reading more of what others have found to work for them.

    Link

    ackuric
    Participant
    Member

    I agree STO, that just because length is likely the best method of suppression, the fun is in the chase to minimize said length while minimizing sound. Any reduction in decibel level while using the same length is quite the accomplishment due to the nature of pressure waves / air moving quickly and likely in the path of least resistance, even though we attempt to create resistance and turbulence, more times than not the air avoids it…lol. JMO!

    Link

    STO
    Participant
    Member

    Funny enough, I actually happen to have some F1 felt, as well as some other felt flavors. I might zip some of it out into baffles to try. I do have some concerns about long term degradation of the left, as repeated pressure waves are very capable of fraying it. I noticed in a couple youtube videos a certain brand of vented moderator with small holes and a felt core seems to often have fuzzies sticking out said holes when used on powerful guns. I genuinely don't want to talk shit about this brand because I don't know if a factory configuration results in that, or if the ELU stuffed some sort of felt or foam in there. Either way though, it is something to consider. If the felt frays and enters the pellet path, that would be very bad indeed. Best case inaccuracy results, worst case a catastrophic baffle strike causes the whole moderator to self destruct. And while some moderators could survive such an impact, maybe, the strength and weight necessary to assure it would be ridiculous. I like small and light, and I want small and light, so unscheduled spontaneous disassemblies are NFG. :P 

     

    I am working slowly on the next round of designs to test. The gas diode was, to my eyes anyway, shockingly effective. But is it better in flow-through configuration or full width? And what if you just use it as the first couple blast baffles to mop up the most aggressive elements of the pressure wave, but then put some lighter damping materials in further down the can to muffle the quieter elements? I mean, really, why should a moderator have the same design along its entire length? Why not aggressive flow-stopping at the rear and quieter sound damping at the front? *shrug* More testing will be required, obviously. 

    Link

    ackuric
    Participant
    Member

    I concur with most everything you stated. I just did an odd interesting test, not too conclusive but I pressed my rifle with moderator collapsed (3.75" btw hah) (unloaded) into my bed comforter and shot next to my db meter, reading was 77 db, of course this is just a cell phone app but its good for cross comparison. I then left the rifle a few inches above the bed and repeated…75 DB. Also noticeably quieter to the ear.

    That tells me that when I pressed it against the bed, it allowed the 'blast' or expansion to primarily occur in the moderator, as opposed to when lifted it occurred both in and out..just opinion, maybe that tad bit of data can be helpful when diving deep down the rabbit hole. 

     

    I think that may be why felt  or the one foam version in your test may help dampen the internal expansion of the blast inside a moderator…just theory. I wonder if a 'sound dampening' material truly designed to dampen sound would be best to line a moderator with or even the entire internals? Hmmmm D:

     

     

     

    Link

    Mendopellet
    Participant
    Member

    I do not use felt baffles, as in felt washers with slightly larger pellet size holes in them. That is asking for clipping, and fraying, with felt spitting out of the end with every shot.

    I use 1/8" and  1/4" sheets of the F1 felt.  Then I cut it to fit between my aluminum baffles, rolled around the interior wall. Making a new interior moderator wall of felt. I glue these into place, where they can not move with an air blast.. I also like to take small plastic hair curlers, and cut them to fit perfectly between the aluminum spacers. The felt sheet wraps tightly around the curler, which then barely will squeeze into the tube. The curlers only purpose is to hold the felt against the side wall, as well as being the spacer between the baffles. I tried using the pretty screen like Huggett uses, but after ripping my hand on it, while trying to roll it into a perfect tube, I just use hair curlers now, or glue the felt into place as I said. But the air still has at least at half to 3/4" inside the felt to expand. 

    Link

    Mendopellet
    Participant
    Member

    Here is an example of what I do with my felt. Epoxied in place, and held in place. Both works perfectly well.

    And if you look at the forward chamber, plastic or aluminum hair curlers will serve the same purpose just as well.

    So maybe it seems that Weirauch, and others did cheap out using hair curlers. But when it works just as well ….

    While I do not want to be known as the felt fanboy, lol. The way I found how much of an improvement it 

    made, was by making simple moderators without it first … then adding the felt and measuring again.

    BUT … let's be straight up here … The Tesla Gas Diode is waaaaay cooler !!!

     

    Link

    Mendopellet
    Participant
    Member

    "Why not aggressive flow-stopping at the rear and quieter sound damping at the front?" you asked, STO ?

    This is exactly how I have been designing my moderators and shrouds.

    Link

    STO
    Participant
    Member

    Mendopellet

    While I do not want to be known as the felt fanboy, lol.

    BUT … let's be straight up here … The Tesla Gas Diode is waaaaay cooler !!!

    Too late, you may as well change your handle now, FELTFANBOY4EVER!!!!!! :P 

     

    Humor aside, you've sold me. I've got two types of felt and several kinds of foam, and half a dozen other materials. I'm trying them. There are a couple designs in the pipeline, but I have this sitting on my desk right now:

    Two gas diodes at the proximal end, three chambers ready for whatever type of damper and wrap at the front end, flow-through around the outside with a clockwise (thread-tightening) swirl and cross-flow between the inner and outer zones assuming permeability with the wrap. Same self-tightening (in theory) flow-through cap as before. Assuming the name of the game is permeability of the high-surface-area component (foam/felt/whatever) I think I'll give some time/effort to cutting a foam insert which is grooved much like an acoustic panel. It is hard to say how effective that might be, but I guess if it works on a large scale it might work on a smaller scale. I've also given some thought to de-turning the apertures. You see holes, particularly ones in relatively thin material, generate an oscillation which creates a whistle. What if an asymmetric design could disrupt that? *shrug* And this is just one of a couple. Hauling all the measuring equipment out is a pain in the tushka, so I'm going to get all my designs finalized before the next round of comparisons, but I'll keep slowly making headway.

     

    I will say the modularity of this particular concept tickles me, because it means I can have just one core and endlessly swap damper baffles and absorbing liners between it. Makes testing much quicker as new materials come along. 

    Link

    ackuric
    Participant
    Member

    Can't wait for more results! Taking your already proven concept and making a hybrid from it. Don't leave us waiting! :P

     

    I plan on designing new moderator internals after you get more results, may have to implement felt / sound absorption of some sort!

    Link

    Mendopellet
    Participant
    Member

    Feltfanboy here, LOL. You bet STO …When you said, "I will say the modularity of this concept tickles me, because it means I can have just one core and endlessly swap damping baffles and absorbing liners between it. Makes testing much quicker as new materials comes along":

     

    This is exactly how I did all of my testing. I had three different ODs of tubing, with three baffle sets. I experimented like crazy to find what worked for me. THAT is how I learned the few things I did find which DO make a difference. I can tell you why the felt works so well. Air flow blast does not stop at the edge of the felt, but travels all the way through the felt. The F1 density of felt, just so happens to be about perfect for absorbing as much of the air blast as possible. I tried F3. and a couple of other felts, but it seems F1 is the best by trial alone. I think it is because any less dense felt allows too much air flow to properly slow down the blast as much as possible. 

     

    The two quietest moderators I never heard, both had F1 felt in them. Both in .22, one shooting 27 fpe, the other 50 fpe. The first was a 1" OD by 7" carbon fiber mod, the other a large 9" Ripley. Both guns went "click" when fired. It was head scratching.

Viewing 20 posts - 21 through 40 (of 127 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.