TargetTalk

...no gyro can work without an external power source

Depends how you define the word "external" :-)))

I agree "active/passive" is the best distinction.

PS. then interpret :-)

taz wrote:... the problem arises when you are shooting in a non WC event and the local uneducated judge interprets the rules...

You suppose, up to now, it has been different? ;-)

PS. Interpretation should be done before, but also after each "case", by the ISSF Technical Committee. Then, in specific situations if appear, by a Technical Control Jury of a competition.

An object or system that doesn't change its status during a particular event, is a passive object or system (For example, a stopped car hit by another car. In this case the car is a passive object even if it has a turned on engine).

An active object or system is something that changes its status before and during an event. For example a moving car that hits another car. The car changed its position, speed, etc before the event; in this case a collision.


I don't know what gyroscope they mean and when they enter in action in a rifle, but if a gyroscope starts "to take" action before the shot, definitely it is an active object or system.

Kloss wrote:An object or system that doesn't change its status during a particular event, is a passive object or system (For example, a stopped car hit by another car. In this case the car is a passive object even if it has a turned on engine).

An active object or system is something that changes its status before and during an event. For example a moving car that hits another car. The car changed its position, speed, etc before the event; in this case a collision.

Those are not the definitions of the words "active" and "passive", and redefining them isn't helpful.

Grzegorz wrote:Concerning "definitions" given in the rules... I have an impression, that we try to define everything very very precisely in our rules, and we have been caught in a trap.

...why we stress "everything must be described in the Rules"? IT CANNOT. Write a general rule, interpret this by the ISSF Technical Committee and let a Technical Control Jury to do their job.

I agree wholeheartedly. My experience is that attempts to add rules to cover weird, unlikely situations will inevitably lead to unintended consequences that hurt competitors unnecessarily and unjustly.

The flip side of this argument, however, must be recognized. When someone writes a rule assuming that everyone will just know what it means, some competitor will come up with a novel (but perfectly legal, by the wording of the rule) way to apply it. At that point, there is no good resolution.

I can remember seeing two separate situations (not ISSF) where a competitor passed the equipment inspection with a rifle stock configuration and a pistol sight configuration that were legal under a literal interpretation of the rules. After those competitors won their events, other shooters filed protests and the winners were then disqualified for violating "the spirit of the rules".

It's that sort of ex post facto idiocy on the part of judges and juries that causes some competitors to want to see every single thing covered in the rules and defined to a fare-thee-well.

Damned if you do; damned if you don't, it seems. Given that human nature dictates such will always be the case, I must agree with Grzegorz that a surfeit of rules is the greater evil since, ultimately, sports that require any sort of even mildly complicated equipment tend to smother themselves in their own rulebooks.

Sparks wrote:

Kloss wrote:An object or system that doesn't change its status during a particular event, is a passive object or system (For example, a stopped car hit by another car. In this case the car is a passive object even if it has a turned on engine).

An active object or system is something that changes its status before and during an event. For example a moving car that hits another car. The car changed its position, speed, etc before the event; in this case a collision.

Those are not the definitions of the words "active" and "passive", and redefining them isn't helpful.

Saying this, without explain why you think that, it is a little superficial.
I didn't redefine anything, I just explained the physic concepts; so according to you, we need to rewrite the basics of physic.

To clarify what ISSF says, so everybody is able to understand clearly, they need to list the systems they are talking about; or at least specify those systems that can represent a group of different systems.

Kloss wrote:...
To clarify what ISSF says, so everybody is able to understand clearly, they need to list the systems they are talking about; or at least specify those systems that can represent a group of different systems.

Hmmm... OK, so... below please find the photo of the absorber that we have developed in my laboratory. We gonna name it "Superpassive absorber". As this is a top secret product of my Lab, that we plan to sell, it is fixed and closed permanently. In fact, tell this nobody, inside (about 30% of the volume) there is a 200 bar cell, a reductor, and a gyro powered by compressed air. Gyro works for about 4 hours without any engagement of the shooter. It can be refilled, of course.

Gregorz, first of all, your absorber looks really ingenious.

I just explained that a gyroscope itself, in its standard use, takes the active role and whatever can be affected takes the passive role; only IF the gyroscope is in function before a determined event. That's it. I didn't say anything else. I didn't say the active role is granted because it spins and so it will be banned. Just to give an example when a gyroscope is passive: in the Nintendo Wii the gyroscope is passive; it reacts at the controller's movements.

Now, if ISSF wants to apply this rule like the physic teaches us (and it should, because we are talking about physic in this case), I don't know; if they want to apply the rules giving another definition, they can do it. They do the rules and they can even change the physic rules; obviously valid only in ISSF standards.
I just meant, being critical towards ISSF, that if they want you shot in a way or in another, they will, there is no win. We can talk about this, but at the end, they will take the decision; that's why I said "I don't know what gyroscope they mean and when they enter in action in a rifle[...]".
I was sarcastic, we know what it is.
Is your system running before the shot? And what does ISSF mean with before the shot? The moment the shooter pulls the trigger or just the moment before the pellet is out from the muzzle?
First they should define these details and clearly what they want to avoid. No recoil? Do they want the shooters being less precise?
But most important, ISSF should clarify when they publish new rules and not answering with "we will let you know as soon as we will figure out", it is not professional.

Kloss wrote:But most important, ISSF should clarify when they publish new rules and not answering with "we will let you know as soon as we will figure out"

Perhaps they will. We won't know until they publish the rule which they haven't done yet.

Wait until they publish a rule before criticizing them for not making it specific enough.

David Levene wrote:

Kloss wrote:But most important, ISSF should clarify when they publish new rules and not answering with "we will let you know as soon as we will figure out"

Perhaps they will. We won't know until they publish the rule which they haven't done yet.

Wait until they publish a rule before criticizing them for not making it specific enough.

But they are public anyway.

Kloss wrote:

David Levene wrote:

Kloss wrote:But most important, ISSF should clarify when they publish new rules and not answering with "we will let you know as soon as we will figure out"

Perhaps they will. We won't know until they publish the rule which they haven't done yet.

Wait until they publish a rule before criticizing them for not making it specific enough.

But they are public anyway.

Really? Where?

Maybe you didn't read the answer Sparks received from Gary Anderson which included "The ISSF is still working on the final wording of this rule...."

David Levene wrote:...
Really? Where?

Maybe you didn't read the answer Sparks received from Gary Anderson which included "The ISSF is still working on the final wording of this rule...."

David, do not "absorbe vibrations" :-)

I belong to this unpopular part of the shooting sport community that supports the idea of changing ISSF Rules. I am pro. However, if there are questions, problems, crizticism that appear during the discussion, it is OK. Better now, than after. So many details are available in the official statements as well as unofficial leaks (like draft of corrected rules that is spread around via net). If there is any member of the ISSF Committees who takes a look on such forums, he may get any new idea, solution, so... Do not "absorbe vibrations", particularly "actively" - it is against the new Rules ;-)

David Levene wrote:

Kloss wrote:

David Levene wrote:

Kloss wrote:But most important, ISSF should clarify when they publish new rules and not answering with "we will let you know as soon as we will figure out"

Perhaps they will. We won't know until they publish the rule which they haven't done yet.

Wait until they publish a rule before criticizing them for not making it specific enough.

But they are public anyway.

Really? Where?

Maybe you didn't read the answer Sparks received from Gary Anderson which included "The ISSF is still working on the final wording of this rule...."

If they or somebody else didn't make them public, why are we talking about them?

Grzegorz wrote:

David Levene wrote:...
Really? Where?

Maybe you didn't read the answer Sparks received from Gary Anderson which included "The ISSF is still working on the final wording of this rule...."

David, do not "absorbe vibrations" :-)

I belong to this unpopular part of the shooting sport community that supports the idea of changing ISSF Rules. I am pro. However, if there are questions, problems, crizticism that appear during the discussion, it is OK. Better now, than after. So many details are available in the official statements as well as unofficial leaks (like draft of corrected rules that is spread around via net). If there is any member of the ISSF Committees who takes a look on such forums, he may get any new idea, solution, so... Do not "absorbe vibrations", particularly "actively" - it is against the new Rules ;-)

Gregorz, I understand that I am not welcomed here because I have a disagreement with you and the other guys; but at least you can avoid the sarcasm towards me.

Kloss wrote:...

Gregorz, I understand that I am not welcomed here because I have a disagreement with you and the other guys; but at least you can avoid the sarcasm towards me.

Gosh!!! It was not my intention! No sarcasm at all! We all "vibrate" a little now, me too. And it is OK, should be like that. You know where is the perfect silence and motionless? Let's "vibrate", exchange opinions.

Kloss wrote:

David Levene wrote:

Kloss wrote:

David Levene wrote:

Kloss wrote:But most important, ISSF should clarify when they publish new rules and not answering with "we will let you know as soon as we will figure out"

Perhaps they will. We won't know until they publish the rule which they haven't done yet.

Wait until they publish a rule before criticizing them for not making it specific enough.

But they are public anyway.

Really? Where?

Maybe you didn't read the answer Sparks received from Gary Anderson which included "The ISSF is still working on the final wording of this rule...."

If they or somebody else didn't make them public, why are we talking about them?

Indeed. People are talking about what they think the rule will contain when it is finalised. As an example, some seem to be intent on discussing gyroscopes. I might be wrong but I cannot remember them being mentioned in the issued summary, explanations from ISSF officers or in the various leaked draft rules I have seen.

It seems somewhat unfair to criticize the ISSF for what others think the rule will say.

Kloss wrote:Saying this, without explain why you think that, it is a little superficial.

I did explain it, a few posts back.

I didn't redefine anything, I just explained the physic concepts;

No, you didn't. Those are not the physical concepts.

David Levene wrote:It seems somewhat unfair to criticize the ISSF for what others think the rule will say.

C'mon David .... they (ISSF) don't know what it means, of course it's fair to criticize when they only have a vague concept.

A vague concept should be left out of published rules until it was defined enough that one could, at least, at least determine what the "spirit of the rules" is they are trying to enforce.

Here in the US, we have 3-Position air where the rules are, for the most part, taken from ISSF rules.
Here is the quote of the rule that now applies and is effective today, Oct 1:

Any device, mechanism or system that artificially reduces, slows or minimizes rifle oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited.

Exactly as Gary Anderson quoted.

It's far from perfect in that some jury, somewhere could interpret this to be a simple barrel weight which artificially slows the barrel oscillations.
If this happens in an ISSF match that establishes a precedent that, so far in the little time I've been doing this, I've always seen ISSF support.

==============
Camera systems which Gary referred to only use what are called "MEMS Gyros" they do not spin .. they detect angular motion.
You can stabilize the line of sight, thru the sights all you want, (the camera systems steer the light beam onto the photoarray) but the barrel will probably be pointing somewhere else.
You must also have an actuator that can nudge the barrel (think Newton's third law here) ... much easier to steer a beam of light than a 9+lb rifle around.

All they would need to do is add "active" between the first two words and they would be fine.

David Levene wrote:... As an example, some seem to be intent on discussing gyroscopes. I might be wrong but I cannot remember them being mentioned in the issued summary, explanations ....

Maybe they should be? Or, maybe not? Why you find this uncorrect to discuss this?

It seems somewhat unfair to criticize the ISSF for what others think the rule will say.

Take it easy. At least as I know them, they are not like "young virgins" sensitive to any criticism. They will survive.

Concerning the gyroscope "Superpassive absorber" I have mentioned - it was just a joke. It is LP50 cylinder photoshoped with a part of Centra handstop. I just wanted to show, that any judge, jury member is not able to state (even when the rules are very precise) if it is ok with rules or not. It is better to let them take instant decision than create extremaly precise and therefore complicated rules. I know, it is not popular opinion at all, but this is my opinion. That's all. Kloss has his rights to have his own opinion.

So many things to consider........

But:
There will be meetings, and there are some dates coming up.
Deadlines.
Will they get all these things sorted out in time?
Or will there be a final committee panic/stampede to finalize everything?
Maybe the classic "we'll let the old board members make the final decision"?

Better keep it simple to avoid confusion, perhaps.
Not make it too technical.......

Governing body membership and scientific competence don't always go hand in hand.