There for looks, increased case capacity or for efficiency? If efficiency how do you define efficiency? If it is increased capacity that isn't efficiency.

I read the 25'06 40 degree thread and that interested me very much.

I would like to hear anyones thoughts who has experience working with the before/after Ackley improved numbers.

Thanks.

Mechanically I think steep shoulders gives a more definite headspace(less likely for cartridges to crush into chamber neck area when a cartridge is forcefully pushed into chamber).

For efficiency, I am not a wildcatter, but I heard that during ignition and burning, it is more efficient to have powder remain in the cartridge than to have gas blasting powder out of cartridge and into gunbore.

Viewing from inside the cartridge, the steep shoulders just look like sloped circular gateway, powder particles have a better chance to "bounce" back with a steep wall, therefore, more chance to stay in the shell.

Correct me if I am wrong.

They reduce brass stretching considerably. Speaking from experience here. Six months back I did a conversion from 303 British to 303 Epps. The rifle used was a Ross. The tapered 303 British is notorious as a case stretcher. With the Epps on the other hand, I have reloaded some of the cases twenty times. No sign of failure, and the loads are far above factory 303British fare. I have not even trimmed them. Not that they don't grow, (not much mind you) but the generous throat on this rifle means I don't have to trim.

Pyrotek and Cannuck have it right. The old wildcatters claimed that a sharp shoulder caused more of the powder to burn inside the case rather than in the bore, but there's no evidence that this is really what happens. But, less stretching and better headspace is something that can be observed, so we know this is true.

"I did a conversion from 303 British to 303 Epps. The rifle used was a Ross. The tapered 303 British is notorious as a case stretcher. With the Epps on the other hand, "

The Ross had a chamber that was so oversized that you could drive a car in there! : ) I would expect stretching.

Along with the increased shoulder angle, the cartridge case comes out with less taper. This enables it to "grip" the chamber better upon ignition and thus reduce backthrust against the breechface/bolt. At least that is my understanding.

Roger, the all time authority of cartridge efficiency was P.O. Ackley. Suggest you get his book "Handbook for Shooters & Reloaders." It is treasure house of info that will open your eyes to this subject. Get the first volume as it has a lot more info than volume 2.

I think "efficiency" is a ratio between what you put in as opposed to what you get out. You are wrong to suggest that increasing capacity automatically reduces efficiency. It doesn't. Well, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. The .22 Hornet blown out to a K Hornet is good example of INCREASING efficiency. Blowing out shoulders on cartridges like the 25/06 or even 270 are probably fair examples or REDUCED efficiency as these cartridges are already pretty much at "maximum bore capacity" as Ackley called it.

I like to compare it to a car engine. You can graph all the power curves, fuel burn etc and you will soon see that beyond a certain point or RPM, efficiency goes to hell. I guess every mechanical device is this way.

Most of the big "glorious magnums" are pitiful on the cartridge efficiency scale. They blow an extra 20-30 grains of powder out the barrel just to squeek out an extra unnecessary 150-200 fps. The cost is, besides the obvious, poor case life, poor barrel life, extra blast, extra recoil, expensive, silly, belted cases, and often extra cost just for the actions. It's an interesting subject and Ackley was the authority on it. Get the book, my friend.

Howdy,
I have both of his books.

What I meant was, I am not defining "efficiency" as "increased case capacity". My definition of efficiency would be increasing the shoulder angle 5 degrees, the internal volume is not changed but all of a sudden with exactly the same powder loads I am getting 50-100fps increased velocity.
Example of efficiency is WSM, using virtually same powder weight and getting the same velocity as .300 Winnie. OR at least they would if the rifle were throated long to allow bullet to not intrude into the case.

scot
Super Member ALL Ross .303 chambers were not oversize. They resorted to chamber butchery after a couple of years during WWI due to extraction problems in the trenches. But some of the earier rifles escaped this "solution". I've seen a couple that were not too large in the chamber.

OK, Roger, defining "efficiency" that was is a bit of a different ball game and would require, I should think, some studying along those lines. But again Ackley's books would be about the first resource I would check.

In first hand experience, I've been around some 30/06, 7mm, and .250/3000 that were blown out at the shoulders and it DID soup them all up. I think blowing out the shoulder is seldom done for cosmetic reasons. The main purpose in my mind is always to gain more case capacity...among other things.

Perhaps I still do not exactly understand your question. Sorry

Ok,
I had looked at the .338 A-Sq and .338 Lazzeroni, .338 Lapua and .338/378 Weatherby.
The Lapua, Lazz and A-Sq are all about same internal volume. The Lapuas shoulder is 20 deg. Lazz 30 deg. and A-Sq is 35 deg.

Lapua runs 2995fps at ~58,000psi
Lazz runs 3150fps at ~65,000psi
A-Sq runs 3120fps at ~61,200psi and the Weatherby is 2990-3040fps at 52,500CUP

What is different? Internal volume and shoulder angle. The A-Sq and Lazz are virtually the same...really. So I asked an engineering grad student, my physics professor, another physics grad student, Alliant, Hodgdon and Vitavouri.

Alliant and Vitavouri never responded. By the way, I have a large Excell file on these and more complete explanation.

Gist of it involves high-pressure gas dynamics in nozzles, which is what a neck area is like. Shallow angles channel flow vectors into the neck, therby pushing the powder down into the neck/barrel. Sharp angles reflect the vectors, slowing the gas entry thus increasing pressure in the cartridge resulting in a more ideal burn. The powder is producing the pressure rather than getting pushed down the barrel which is a low pressure area where the combustion is non-optimum.

That is the gist of it.

You folks have reiterated what the theoretical people said. By the way, the engineering and physics grad student and the physics professor know noting of firearms. I described the cartridge sizes, pressures, velocities and shoulder angles and they all immediately hit on the shoulders. Pretty cool huh?

Bad thing about 40 degree shoulders, if not properly done right, the sharp shoulder can bump the chamber mouth and cause a jerky feeling to chamber the round. ~~~Suluuq

eldeguello and Scott
Regarding my Ross:
The chamber was over size. Not any more than my SMLE Enfields but definately a case stretcher. It was neccessary to headspace while doing the ream job to tighten things up.

John Y Cannuck O.K.!!!

Let me throw a monkey wrench in this mix to see if any gears grind.

When Robert Goddard was doing research into rockets back in the late twenties, early thirties, he made an eye opening discovery. With the combustion chamber being equal in displacement, he got more gas exiting the nozzle and creating thrust from a nozzle that had a shallow angle on the inside than a sharp angle. I carried that piece of information around forgotten in my head until one day while reloading, it popped back to mind. Isn't a cartridge a rocket? With a combustion chamber and nozzle; that is, the shoulder and neck?

Goddard calculated that a steep neck; that would be an improved case of any sort; did not allow for the smooth flow of gas through the nozzle; that would be the neck; and therefore produced less thrust from an equal displacement with a steep angle.

Goddard calulated the flow of gas in a steep nozzle created a eddie that flowed back against the main flow of gas lessening thrust.

Why doesn't Goddard's observation fit with a rifle cartridge?

Reminds me that properly constructed PPC cases are supposed to have the flash hole in the shape of a "Laval nozzle" (sp?)
Roger, maybe Goddard's nozzles are TOO good at putting out the gas. You probably don't get as complete of burn if the nozzle is optimized too much for flow.
Hmmmm....

And that is exactly what these engineering people were saying. You can think of the case being a rocket in that sense. Interesting twist on the intial observation.

Remember seeing the combustion chambers on the Saturn 5? Enormous spherical chamber with a small exit and huge bell shaped nozzle? I am wondering how it worked.

Heres my take on it... rocket fuel must be ignited at the nozzle, and a "faster" nozzle would be beneficial. This helps to reduce pressure build-up within the rocket's fuel stores. Any excess pressure causes the rocket to explode, since it has no "chamber" to contain the pressure. It must dump the pressure to fly, so a "faster" nozzle (shallow shoulder) helps (Goddards experiments show this, with his differing shoulder angle designs).

Had he ignited the fuel at the top (primer flash hole area), it would blow the fuel out the nozzle.
Firearms are ignited from the primer area (top, rocket-wise, if you please). But doing this causes the pressure to blow the powder out the bore (nozzle), so a steeper shoulder helps to inhibit this to some degree.

Some experiments were done with igniting the powder from the bore (nozzle area) via a long tube connected to the primer flash hole. This system burned powder backwards as it were, thus stopping the powder from blowing out the case (bore/nozzle).

Thus, rockets are designed to dispurse the pressure, whereas a cartridge is designed to contain it. Their chosen nozzles (shoulder angles) help with their respective designs. ~~~Suluuq

Rusty Gunn,
Good analysis. Makes sense to me. A lot of artillery shells are constructed with the flash tube to conduct the primer ignition to multiple levels within the main charge. Lots of little flash holes along the flash tube.

------------------
RAB

Yes, and most of the artillery shells (fixed rounds) I have seen have shallow shoulder angles, if any!! They're probably improperly designed.

Question. Why do I get the 2400 fps from a 458 Lott (straight walled case) with only 87 grains of powder and it takes 112 grains of powder from a 450 Rigby (sharp shoulder bottleneck cartridge)?

The 458 Lott does not leave any unburn powder residue, while the Rigby does. Why is this?

I could change this to 50 calibers easily also. I can get 2400 fps with only 115 grains of powder in a 495 A-square (straight walled case) it takes 125 grains of powder with a 500 AHR (bottle necked moderate shoulder angle).

Again the 495 A-Square has no unburned powder residue. The AHR will almost certainly have some.

Todd E

Todd E... Simple. Expansion ratio.

The 458 Lott vs the 450 Rigby. The smaller striaght-walled 458 has a higher expansion ratio then the 450.

Another example...

30-06 vs 35 Whn
Same case, near same capacity.
Due to the 358 bore being larger, the gases expand faster. Plus, it's bullet base also being larger more pressure can be used to push the bullet. This aspect of more bullet base area don't work for the 458's listed above, since both are the same, but the expansion ratio makes a big difference. ~~~Suluuq

Rusty gun,

I am familiar with expansion ratio. The discussion so far seems to point out that most of the posters are not.

The angle of the shoulder will have a direct effect on the exit velocity of the burned gases. The exit velocity is effected by the turbulence created by the sharp shoulder angle. The turbulence reduces the exit velocity; therefore, the powder is more thoroughly burned in the case. This phenomena is most evident in the overbore capacity cases. This is the part of the reason that it is so easy to create high pressure in the over bore cases. Now the expansion ratio is terrible with the overbore cases. This is the prevalent consideration, not the shoulder angle!

That is all I am going to say, I promise!

Todd E

All,

Very interesting.

I've re-designed, with the help of software, the 338 RUM. I've made it longer, wider, and with less taper. I've also increased the shoulder angles to 45�. (The length and width increases are less than what a 375H&H sees when it's being fire formed for 375 Wby.)

The program tells me my redesigned 338 RUM will hold 120grs of water; where as the program tells me the 338 Lapua holds 120.9grs of water.

I plan on implementing this "new" design in either a 700 SF Sendaro 338 RUM or a 700 LSS 338 RUM.

Here's my question(s):

Does anyone see any reason not to try the 45� shoulders?

Let me hear your thoughts.

Thanx

------------------
Speak softly and carry a really big MAGNUM.

Regards,

Mark

With the expansion ratio you have I would recommend less shoulder angle. The reason being that you want the pressure curve to be flatter not spike. If you hold the burning gases in the case (as the sharp shoulder would help to do, as well as, the poor expansion ratio) you pressure will spike quickly. You will not get the most consistant pressure curve and this will lead to errattic velocities and reduced accuracy.

There is a real reason the bench rest cartridges use a 20 - 25 degree shoulder angle. It has to do with a consistant repeatable and predictable pressure curve. You may find that with a 25 degree shoulder your 338 RUM improved, even though with less powder capacity than the Lapua, performs as well or even better. The reason being that your cartridge has a better expansion ratio than the Lapua; therefore, reducing the pressure spike and flattening out the pressure curve.

Todd E

Todd, will that 20-25 degree shoulder translate into more consistant velocity? I'm curious as my 300 WSM, with RL22 and H4350 (the only two I've tried) seems to be all over the map in terms of velocity with a given load... seems only at the very maximum powder charge that velocities become consistant... may, of course, have to do with fouling the barrel, the powder, or my loading technique (as well as a dozen other variables) and not the WSM's 35 Degree shoulder.?.?

Brad

I wonder Todd, would it have anything at all to do with the burning rates of the powders you are using for the straight-walled and bottlenecked cases?

I wonder, do those 20-25 degree shoulders on the benchrest cartridges help scoot the case into line with the bore better than a steep angle would? I think those guys are more interested in getting the bullet to line up rather than overall velocity.

PAW,
Too high a shoulder angle will create stagnation/cavitations zones near the case wall/shoulder junction.

Roger,

I take it that you think the 45� shoulder on my wildcat are overkill?

Hmmm . . . perhaps go to 35�?

Any insite as to why the JDJ series of cases seem to be so fast and accurate?

Most of those have 60� angles.

Hmmmm . . .

Perhaps I'll just rechamber to a 338-300 RUM and forget my wildcat.

Great thread!!!!!!!!!!

Thanx for the feedback and the ideas.

------------------
Speak softly and carry a really big MAGNUM.

Regards,

Mark

Roger,

Even if I load a slower burning powder into the straight walled case I do not get the unburned powder in the bore. The reason that the straight walled cases utilize less and faster burning powders is they have a better expansion ratio!

The ignition and burning of gun powder is and the expansion of the burned gases is exactly the same as the burning and expansion of gasoline in a spark ignition engine. The rocket example is not accurate as in the case of a rocket engine fuel and oxidizers are metered precisely to control the burn rate. This burned gase is then metered through a nozzle. The nozzle by the way is frequently adjustable. This is particularly true with respect to jet propulsion systems.

The objective is to achieve as close to a constant pressure as possible for the entire time the bullet is in the barrel. The perfect system would achieve maximum pressure instantly upon ignition maintain the pressure for the time the bullet travelled down the barrel. At the time the bullet exited the barrel the pressure would instantly drop to zero.

This is obviously impossible. (Just like the perfect cam shaft profile, which is a square or rectangle). The reason that improved cartridges have been invented with steep shoulder angles is to increase the amount of powder available to be burnt. This was done because there is precise little else we as handloaders can do. Often there is little real advantage gained (contrary to reports). The commercial cartridges with steep shoulder angles originally were made that way to resist the striker blow therefore maintaining proper headspacing (416 Rigby).

Roy Weatherby, understanding that his overbore capacity magnums needed all the help they could get to exit burnt gases and therefore maximize the area under the pressure curve created his double radius (venturi) shoulder. The benefit of this design has been shown to be somewhat neglible. It is the expansion ratio, which is of paramount consideration. You do not need to believe me, I really do not care. The same opinions are shared by the losers at the drag strips. They wish to beleive whatever and cannot understand the physics involved so will not accept the truth. In the end they just lose and lose and lose.

I have heard all kinds of very interesting comments made on this forum and others regarding scientific methods. Most of them very erroneous to say the least. Comments made about data acquisition being inaccurate are extremely erroneous. Of course perhaps these individuals have not heard of calibration of isntrumentation. If you want to experiment with shoulder angles of cartridges go ahead and have fun. Take a 30-06 load it with the exact same powder charge and bullet and ajdust the shoulder angle from 17 degrees 30 minutes all the way to 75 degrees and see what additional benefits you get. I suggest that you fire a minimum of 25 shots with each shoulder angle. You should change barrels between each shoulder angle as well. The fire 25 samples of the original 30-06 load through the new barrel to comprehend any variation and to establish a calibration curve. When you are all said and done you can them perform a statiistical analysis of the results I would recommend a Weibull. We can then compare slopes to determine confidence bands, etc. You could then post your results and tell us statistically what effect if any the shoulder angle had on the performance of the cartridge.

I do not mean to sound like a prick, and that is not my intention. What I am saying is no one really knows on this forum. So I am suggesting you perform the experiment and report to us so we will know. At least for the expansion ratio of the 30-06.

Todd E

You know what really ticks me off? I had written a long, detailed post that took me 1/2 an hour and I get the "we're sorry but the password you entered is not correct, use your back button". Which I do and everything was gone. How nice.

Tod,
I have created reduced loads for my .500 A-Square using: H-5010, H-1000, H-870, XMR-8700, H-4831, RL-22, and IMR-7828. All except the 4831 and 7828 left residue with the RL-22 it took compressed loads before all the powder burned. The first four are quite dirty requiring a blow down the barrel to clear the unburned granules.

Low pressure equaled poor combustion. I would email you the file on that but interestingly you have no email.

P.S. You do come across a little stiff. If read the posts on the medium bore section and the above posts again I think you'd have a better understanding of what the intention was of this intellectual pursuit.

[This message has been edited by Roger Rothschild (edited 04-14-2002).]

Ok, Ok . . .

I know that there are no stupid questions.

Only stupid people that ask questions - hehehe

Getting back to my 45� dilema, what does "stagnation/cavitations zones near the case wall/shoulder junction" mean?

What would be the implications of "stagnation/cavitations zones near the case wall/shoulder junction" in a case holding let's say +100grs of H1000 and a 250gr bullet?

And can anyone address JDJ's 60� shoulders and why they work so well?

------------------
Speak softly and carry a really big MAGNUM.

Regards,

Mark

PAW,
It means nothing is going on there. Swirling around. Or nothing there at all (cavitation) an interruption of smooth flow and all that.

Much of this stuff is easy to visualize when studying vectors in physics and calculus. It isn't propellor head stuff by any means but it IS a lot easier to show when someone draws you a picture.

If you live near a university, make an appointment to talk to an engineering professor. Someone who does flow analysis. Take with you some copies of cartridges from manuals you can find. Those with sloping shoulders and some with radical sharp shoulders. Tell him you have seen people discussing this one way and the other. You want to hear it from an expert, stress expert. You would be surprised what sincere flattery will get you.

I'll bet you would have a blast (no pun intended).

I sent you an email. Did you get it?

[This message has been edited by Roger Rothschild (edited 04-14-2002).]

PAWildcatter,
I think the 45 degree per side shoulder angle is a great idea.

The most perfect cartridge in the whole world is set up like that: 416 Rigby.

Your cartridge design sounds like a winner to me.

------------------
RAB

Roger,

Thanx for all of the assistance regarding this matter.

That website was a winner.

Seems I have to do some reconfigurations on my proposed 338-300 RUM wildcat.

Have to plug the #s in and see what comes out, now that I have the dims that a reamer maker basis their designs off of.

Sadly, where I live in NE PA, there are no Colleges. However, I am in the aerosoace/defense business. maybe I can find someone from Boeing, ock Mart, TRW, etc to chat with.

Thanx again.

Will advise.

DaggaRon,

Good point I have a Rigby and never thought of it.

Thanx again.

------------------
Speak softly and carry a really big MAGNUM.

Regards,

Mark

Well Todd, you seemed like a person that could answer my question... apparently you're not interested.

Thanks anyway.

Brad

Roger,

The powders you list are ALL TOO SLOW for a straight walled (or near straight walled case) like the 500 A Square. Those powders were designed for cartridges will poor expansion ratios. That means OVERBORE CAPACITY.

Why don't you perform the study I suggested. It will provide statistically significant results. Not the BS opinion that is too often expressed here. Your college professors unfortunately are BSing you too. They have no clue what the burn charateristics of the powders are! If you try and push a fluid though a reduction neck were the transition is very abrupt (sharp shoulder angle) you will get reversion! This can be problematic with many powders and cartridge expansion ratios.

If you perform the empirical analysis and use statistics to analyze your results you could actually provide meaningful information to all of us. I see no reason for our animosity Roger. Roger are these Expert Engineering Professors and Grad Students the same ones that did not know what a slug was? If they are I certainly would take their comments with a very big grain of salt!

Brad,

It has been my experience with cartridges with poor expansion ratios (like your 300 WSM) that they only perform well at or very near a maximum powder charge. The powders you are using would seem to be appropriate in burn rate (the H4350 maybe a tad fast). The overbore capacity cartridges just do not perform well unless maxed out in my experience. If pressure is a concern step up to a maximum charge of H5010 or similar slow burning powder. By reducing the shoulder angle this may improve, but I seriously doubt that there would be any statistically significant improvement. I apologize that I cannot answer all your questions.

Todd E

[This message has been edited by Todd E (edited 04-14-2002).]

Hmmm . . .

Now that I have the reamer makers dims, seems my wildcat is turning into a pussycat.

Lost about 1.8 grs of water. I was at 120grs.

I'm now at 118.2 whereas the Lapua is listed at 122.9grs. The 338 RUM is at 112.3grs. (is 6grs water worth all of this?)

That's still at 45� shoulders.

My previous design had the base at .555 whereas the reamer maker shows it at .551.

Those 4 mills are making a big difference.

The only way to make-up the girth issue is to move the shoulder to 60� - interesting design.

Seems like I'm losing the battle now

Another question somewhat related to this.

Think that it's possible to grow a case in girth from .551 to .555 without jeopardizing the integrity of the case?

------------------
Speak softly and carry a really big MAGNUM.

Regards,

Mark

[This message has been edited by PAWildcatter (edited 04-14-2002).]

Todd, thanks.

Brad

Geez,
Ya know Todd I looked at yer stats and yer a cop? So ya prolly had how much education? I know I ain't the smartest joker around but I am definitely not stupid either. I do have a grasp of a few things. I just don't like that tone. Oh, my professor is probably bs'ing me. You must be thinking of your high school professor 'cause you sure aren't talking about this guy. If he doesn't know or have a good idea, he sez so. He isn't a BS artist.
For your information I have posted HIS stats. Now, who's opinion do you think I will give more weight too? A cop? Or a professional. I do this just to show the absurdity of your statements.
This post has gone far enough.

EDUCATION: B.S. California Institute of Technology, Physics, 1976
Ph.D. University of California, Santa Barbara, Physics, 1981

AWARDS:

1999 Advising Center Award, Advisor of the Year
1999 ASUAF Award for Outstanding Faculty/Staff
1995 Teacher of the Year Award, College of Natural Sciences, University of Alaska
1986 NSF Fellowship, First Advanced Computing Institute, San Diego Supercomputer Center,
San Diego, California
1985 NSF Fellowship to Second International School for Space Simulations, Kapaa, Hawaii
1975-1976 Caltech Alumni Association Scholarship

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE:

1985-1987 Research Associate, Space Physics. Institute for Physical Science and Technology, Maryland,
College Park, Maryland
1986 Participant. First Advanced Computing Institute, San Diego Supercomputer Center, San Diego,
California (Selected physics working group leader; authored physics working group report)
1985 Participant. Second International School for Space Simulations, Kapaa, Hawaii
1983-1985 Research Associate, Space Physics. Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
1981-1983 Postdoctoral Fellow. Physics Department, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
1978-1981 Research Assistant. Physics Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, California

TEACHING EXPERIENCE:

1997-Present Member, Partners in Science
1995-Present Member, POLARIS
1993-Present Associate Professor. Physics Department, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
1987-1993 Assistant Professor. Physics Department, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
1983-1984 Teaching Fellow. Physics Department, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
1982 Teaching Fellow. Physics Department, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
1976-1978 Teaching Assistant. Physics Department, University of California, Santa Barbara.

UNIVERSITY ACTIVITIES:

 Member, Advanced Technology Panel, Arctic Regions Supercomputing Center
 Chair, Chancellor's Advisory Committee for the Arctic Regions Supercomputing Center
 Member, Physics Department Ph.D. Comprehensive Examination Committee
 Member, UA Supercomputer Network Committee
 Member, UAF Faculty Development, Assessment and Improvement Committee, (Faculty Senate
Subcommittee)
 Mentor, American Indian Science and Engineering Society
 Faculty Advisor, Society of Physics Students

COURSES TAUGHT AT UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA:

 Phys 103-104 College Physics and associated lab
 Phys 113 Concepts of Physics
 Phys 211 General Physics
 Phys 213 Elementary Modern Physics
 Phys 275-276 Astronomy
 Phys 311-312 Classical Mechanics
 Phys 313 Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics
 Phys 331-332 Electricity and Magnetism
 Phys 411-412 Modern Physics
 Phys 621 Classical Mechanics
 Phys 622 Statistical Mechanics
 Phys 651-652 Quantum Mechanics

PUBLICATIONS:

JOURNAL ARTICLES

1. Price, C.P. "Neutrino Bremsstrahlung from Quarks and the Cooling of Neutron Stars." Phys. Rev. D22:
1910-1914 (1980).
2. Price, C.P., D. Swift, and L.C. Lee. "Numerical Simulation of Non-Oscillatory Mirror Waves at the Earth's
Magnetosheath." J. Geophys. Res. 91: 101-112 (1986).
3. Price, C.P, and D. Swift. "Ion Tearing Mode Simulations with Open Boundary Conditions." J. Geophys. Res.
91: 11993-12004 (1986).
4. Lee, L.C., C.S. Wu, and C.P. Price. "On the Generation of Magnetosheath Lion Roars." J. Geophys. Res. 92:
2343-2348 (1987).
5. Price, C.P. and C.S. Wu. "The Influence of Strong Hydromagnetic Turbulence on Newborn Cometary Ions."
Geophys. Res. Lett. 14: 856-859 (1987).
6. Price, C.P. and L.C. Lee. "Comet-Solar Wind Interaction through Ion-Proton Beam Instability." Astrophys. J.
324: 606-620 (1988).
7. Price, C.P., J.D. Gaffey, Jr., and J.Q. Dong. "Excitations of Low-Frequency Hydromagnetic Waves by
Freshly Created Ions in the Solar Wind." J. Geophys. Res. 93 (no. A2): 837-844, (1988).
8. Lee, L.C., C.P. Price, C.S. Wu, and M.E. Mandt. "A Study of Mirror Waves Generated Downstream of a
Quasi-Perpendicular Shock." J. Geophys. Res. 93 (no. A1): 247-250 (1988).
9. Wu, C.S., X.T. He, and C.P. Price. "Excitations of Whistlers and Waves with Mixed Polarizations by
Newborn Cometary Ions." J. Geophys. Res. 93 (no. A5): 3949-3957 (1988).
10. Kainer, S., J.D. Gaffey, Jr., C.P. Price, X.W. Hu and G.C. Zhou. "Nonlinear Wave Interactions and Evolution
of a Ring-Beam Distribution of Energetic Electrons."Phys. Fluids. 31(no. 8): 2238-2248 (1988).
11. Price, C.P. "Mirror Waves Driven by Newborn Ion Distributions." J. Geophys. Res. 94 (no. A11): 15,001-
15,009 (1989).
12. Price, C.P. "Teacup Physics: Centripetal Acceleration." The Physics Teacher. 28 (no. 1): 49-50 (1990).
13. Prichard, D. and C.P. Price. "Spurious Dimension Estimates from Time Series of Geomagnetic Indices."
Geophys. Res. Lett. 19:1623 (1992).
14. Price, C.P., D. Prichard and E.A. Hogenson. "Do the Sunspot Numbers Form a Chaotic Set?" J. Geophys.
Res. 97 (no. A12): 19113-19120 (1992)
15. Price, C.P. and D. Prichard. �The Chaotic and Nonchaotic Behavior of Global Geomagnetic Processes.� In:
Physics of Space Plasmas (1992), SPI Conference Proceedings and Reprint Series, Number 12, edited by T. Chang, G.B Crew, and J.R. Jasperse. Cambridge, MA, Scientific Publishers, pgs. 265-278 (1994).
16. Price, C.P. and D. Prichard. �The Non-linear Response of the Magnetosphere: October 30, 1978.� Geophys.
Res. Lett. 20:771 (1993).
17. Prichard, D. and C.P. Price. �Is the AE Index the Result of Nonlinear Dynamics?� Geophys. Res. Lett. 20,
2817, (1993).
18. Price, C.P., and D. Prichard. �On the Embedding Statistic.� Phys. Lett. A 184:83 (1993).
19. Price, C.P., D. Prichard and J.E. Bischoff. "Non-Linear Input/Output Analysis of the Auroral Electrojet
Index." J. Geophys. Res. 99 (no. A7), 13227-13238 (1994).
20. Price, C.P., D. Prichard and J.E. Borovsky. �Comment on �Substorm Recurrance During Steady and
Variable Solar Wind Driving: Evidence for a Normal Mode in the Unloading Dynamics of the Magnetosphere� by A.J. Klimas, D.N. Baker, D. Vassiliadis and D.A. Baker.� J. Geophys. Res., 100, (no. A11), 21995-22001. (1995).
21. Prichard, D., J.E. Borovsky, P.M. Lemmons, and C.P. Price. "Time Dependence of Substorm Recurrence:
An Informational Theoretic Analysis." J. Geophys Res, 101, (no.A7), 15359-15369. (1996).
22. Price, C. P. and D. E. Newman. "Using the R/S statistic to analyze AE data." J. Atm. and Solar-Terrestrial
Phys., 63, 1387-1397. (2001).

ABSTRACTS AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Price, C.P., D.W. Swift, and L.C. Lee. "Numerical Simulation of Non-oscillatory Mirror
Waves at the Earth's Magnetosheath." EOS 65 (no. 16): 254 (1984).
2. Price, C.P. and D.W. Swift. "Ion Tearing Mode Simulations with Open Boundary Conditions." Second
International School for Space Simulations. Kapaa, Hawaii, (1985).
3. Price, C.P. and L.C. Lee. "Comet-solar Wind Interaction through Ion-proton Beam Instability." EOS 66 (no.
46): 1020 (1985).
4. Kainer, S., J.D. Gaffey, Jr., C.P. Price, X.W. Hu, and C.S. Wu. "Generation of Electromagnetic Radiation by
a Ring-beam Distribution of Moderately Relativistic Electrons." EOS 67 (no. 44): 1144 (1986).
5. Dong, J.Q., C.P. Price and J.D. Gaffey, Jr. "Excitation of Low Frequency Hydromagnetic Waves by Freshly
Created Ions in the Solar Wind." EOS 67 (no. 44): 1161 (1986).
6. Price, C.P. "Numerical Simulation of Electron Dynamics Associated with Magnetosheath Mirror Waves."
EOS 67 (no. 44): 1162 (1986).
7. Wu, C.S., C. P. Price and J.D. Gaffey, Jr. "Discussion of the Slow Mode Magnetosonic Wave in MHD and
Vlasov Theory." EOS 67 (no. 44): 1162 (1986).
8. Wu, C.S. and C.P. Price. "In Quest of Slow Shocks." Terra Cognita 7 (no. 2-3): 547 (1987).
9. Price, C.P. and C.S. Wu. "Newborn Ion Pickup in the Presence of Strong Magnetic Turbulence." Terra
Cognita 7 (no. 2-3): 548 (1987).
10. Price, C.P., L.C. Lee, C.S. Wu and M.E. Mandt. "A Study of Mirror Waves Generated Downstream from a
Quasi-Perpendicular Shock." EOS 68 (no. 44): 1427 (1987).
11. Price, C.P. "Mirror Waves Generated by Newborn Ion Distributions." EOS 69 (no. 44): 1289 (1988).
12. Price, C.P. "Waves on the Halfshell." EOS 70 (no. 43): 1181 (1989).
13. Price, C.P. and J.V. Olson. "Plasma Wave Diagnostics for Simulations." EOS 71 (no. 43): 1545 (1990).
14. Olson, J.V., P. Struckman, and C.P. Price. �Correlations Between Cusp Pc3 Pulsations and the Solar Wind.�
EOS 71:924 (1990).
15. Olson, J.V., P.E. Struckman, and C.P. Price. �Correlation of Cusp Region Pc3 Pulsations with Solar Wind
Parameters.� ANARE Res. Notes 80:93 (1991).
16. Price, C.P. "Lyapunov Exponents." Invited talk to the 'Workshop on Global Aspects of Nonlinear
Magnetospheric Dynamics.' College Park, MD (October 1991).
17. Prichard, D. and C.P. Price. "Spurious Dimension Estimates from Time Series of Geomagnetic Indices."
EOS 72 (no. 44): 402 (1991).
18. Price, C.P. and E. Hogenson. "Prediction of Sunspot Numbers Using Chaos." EOS 72 (no. 44): 384 (1991).
19. Price, C.P. �The Chaotic or Nonchaotic Behavior of Global Geomagnetic Processes.� Invited talk to the 1992
Cambridge Workshop in Theoretical Geoplasma Physics, Cambridge, MA (August 1992).
20. Price, C.P. and D. Prichard. �Evidence for Nonlinear Dynamics for Periods of Constant Bz.� EOS Trans.
AGU, Fall Meeting Suppl., 73, 458 (1992).
21. Prichard, D. and C.P. Price. �Detecting Nonlinearity in Magnetospheric Activity.� EOS Trans. AGU, Fall
Meeting Suppl., 73, 458 (1992)
22. Price, C.P., D. Prichard, and J.E. Bischoff. �Non-linear Input/Output Analysis of the Auroral Electrojet
Index.� EOS Trans. AGU, Fall Meeting Suppl., 74, 486 (1993).
23. Price, C.P. and D. Prichard, "Nonlinear Input-output Prediction Methods for Geomagnetic Activity", EOS
Trans. AGU, Spring Meeting Suppl., 76, S260 (1995).
24. Price, C.P., R. Elliott and D. Prichard, "Comparing Global and Local Electrojet Signals for Predictability",
EOS Trans. AGU, Fall Meeting Suppl., 77, S341 (1996).
25. Price, C.P., "Frontiers of Physics: Black Holes, Big Bang and Theories of Everything." Invited talk given to
POLARIS workshop, Anchorage, AK (September 1995).
26. Price, C. P. "Is the Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Coupling Chaotic?" Invited talk given to the Univ. Alaska
Anchorage Physics Dept. (September 1995).
27. Price, C. P. "Is the Solar Wind-Magnetosphere Coupling Chaotic?" Invited talk given to the Univ. Alaska
Fairbanks Physics Dept. (October 1995).
28. Price, C.P., "Hands-On Science: Cratering" Invited talk/workshop given to POLARIS workshop, Palmer, AK
(February 1996).
29. Price, C. P. and D. E. Newman, "Analysis Using R/S Statistic of AE Data", EOS Trans. AGU, Spring
Meeting Suppl., 80, S275. (1999).
30. Olson, J. V. and C. P. Price, "Nonlinear Prediction of Solar Cycle 23", EOS Trans. AGU, Spring Meeting
Suppl., 80, S285. (1999).
31. Price, C. P. "SOC in the Magnetosphere". Invited talk given at 2001 Dynamics of Complex Systems meeting,
UAF. (May 2001).

REVIEWER:

 Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
 Journal of Geophysical Research
 Geophysical Research Letters
 San Diego Supercomputer Center Allocations Committee
 Annales Geophysical
 National Science Foundation
 National Space and Aeronautics Administration

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:

 Member, American Geophysical Union
 Member, American Physical Society
 Member, European Geophysical Society

Roger,

I am a law enforcement officer. I am a professional. From your Professors stats I notice his forte is magnetics. Magnetics ain't gotta whole lot to do with fluid flow does it! I'll bet I have more education than you do also. At least I know what a slug is. Since your Professor is into magnetics I can understand why he would not know what a slug is. Why don't you have him post. I would like to have a candid discussion with him. I am sure I could explain myself and that in the end he would agree with me. Just because you do not understand my point does not mean your professor wouldn't.

I still do not understand what you problem with my proposed experiment is? That experiment would end all this BS. You would have empirical derived evidence one way or the other.

Todd E