|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,506
Posts545,595
Members14,419
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 40
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 40 |
Found a load recipe I'd like to try that is 6900 LUP's. I know there's not a mathematical conversion for LUP to PSI, but is there any way to get an idea of what this would generally eaquate to in PSI?
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 362
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 362 |
Many folks seem to add 1000 to change LUP to PSI. It is something I accept when looking at LUP numbers below 8000. Other than comparing load data and the academics of debate a safe load listed is a safe load. The newest powders have PSI ratings while the older loads are LUP. Lazy manufacturers is why no retests are done to up date old data. Just my .02.
Best,
Ron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,427 Likes: 315
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,427 Likes: 315 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
Think about 8000 psi piezeo. Should be safe in all but oldest/lightest/weakest/worn guns.
RO - lot of cost to do the retesting of LUP rated loads.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,540 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,540 Likes: 3 |
please be aware that in the noted link there is a gross math error, specifically: "European (CIP) proof pressure of 850 kg per sq. cm. (BAR) = 13,920 psi proof pressure= 10,730 psi service pressure (SAAMI)"
the units of BAR are NOT kg/cm2, units of BAR are linearly convertible to psi at a conversion factor of 14.504:1 and the error in the attached link doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with LUP's not being directly convertible. BAR and psi are both measured by transducers. 850 bar converts to 12,328 psi and 650 bar to 9428. the figures quoted in that link are 13% over. 10,730psi you may as well say is standard SAAMI proof. one won't be doing an 850 bar proof gun any favors by loading to those numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,427 Likes: 315
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,427 Likes: 315 |
fnb25: this confusing topic was discussed at length on this thread and the simple 14.5 conversion formula doesn't work. http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...=17&fpart=1
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 105 |
FNB, here is a direct quote from the Birmingham Proof House, reference an article I wrote that was submitted to them, in draft, for comment:
"The reference in the artice to the CIP service pressure of 650 bar and proof pressure of 850 bar is a reference to crushers values; the equivalent transducer values that should be used for comparison with SAAMI transducer values are 740 bar service and 960 bar proof, i.e. 10,730 psi and 13,920 psi."
Not sure about other CIP members--I know they're supposed to be standardized--but the British at least still refer to crusher values with the term "bar". So it's not a question of a "gross math error", but rather "two peoples separated by a common language", as either GB Shaw or Churchill said about Brits and Americans.
Rocketman, it would get pricey to retest a whole bunch of different LUP rated loads. However, if you only want to check the psi values of one or two, just load them up and send them to Tom Armbrust.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Note that was one R Overberg who wanted all those LUP loads re-tested, not Rocketman. Although You are a great writer, leads one to wonder if you can "Read". Are you positive you read that Birmingham Proof letter "Right"?? Those figures do not seem to fit in with other published figures. I believe those 650 BAR loads are considered acceptable for 3 ton proofed guns & yet they were only proofed for loads not exceeding 9,000 psi. 10,730 psi would be quite "Out of Specs" for them, 19% as a matter of fact.
Miller/TN
I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 362
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 362 |
You guys slay me. It would be nice if each update that occurs would bring current data to the mix but I do understand the industry will not go back over old ground. As I said if the load is safe is the main concern. I believe most have upgraded their testing equipment now so the newest data appears in PSI.
Best,
Ron
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 105
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,380 Likes: 105 |
Woops--You're right, Miller. Rocketman was in fact agreeing with me on the pricey nature of retesting LUP-rated loads. We all make the occasional mistake . . .
Can't comment on the 3 ton proof aspect, Miller, but the reason I used quotes is because it's straight from the email I have from the Brit proofhouse. Straight from that email, the Brits measure with crushers but call those measurements "bars"--so you've got the same old LUP vs psi conversion to make. Which the proofhouse was kind enough to do for us.
|
|
|
|
|
