You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Very well organized spreadsheet! However there is a math error in the
density formula, which should be pi*L* (R1^2 - R2^2), while the spreadsheet
has pi*L * (D1 - D2). The resulting densities are around 10x too small -
should be on the order of 0.8 to 0.9 gm/cm^3.
Another thing to look at is that the discrepancy between the wall thickness via
computing (OD - ID)/2 and the direct measurement is unexpectedly large. Both
the ID and OD measurements are noisy by around 1/4 mm which is ~0.010". I know from
experience that measuring the diameters and especially the ID accurately is *really*
hard because paper tubes stretch and compress a lot more than you might expect.
If you fix the formula and use the specified ID/OD instead of the measured ones,
we get very reasonable and consistent +/- 6% densities in the expected 800-900 range. See
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KhEGJ8QAPFXo8E5XGFjaVqdR3KyH0S01MR0VuivKUSQ/edit?usp=sharing
The Apogee line goes beyond the sizes in the spreadsheet. Going through
the current Apogee website I see tubes all the way up to 3.9" that show the
mfr as Apogee. Full dimensions seem to be given for all of them, though
you have to click into the individual item to see it. The dimensions are
within a couple of thousandths of the Estes equivalents.
I am adding this as a proxy for Vaughn Stegeman, who chooses not to sign in to github.
Please add 13, 18, 24, 33 mm body tubes from apogee. I have provided actual data from parts I have.
Apogee Tubes Data.ods