Compensator Question

[EricW]

"Putting stuff on a computer" is not necessarily the same as performing the art and science of mechanical engineering.

Mechanical Design, while a vital ingredient for Western civillization is not the same as Mechanical Engineering.

Still waiting...

Hint: It all starts with the formula for conservation of momentum.

[XRe]

Everybody is saying how nobody has put this comp stuff on a computer program and ran the numbers. Well, these guys did. ...

It sure seems like the stuff that Erik (Bear1142) is asking about has been addressed by those guys. To what extent...I don't know.

True dat... was forgetting the original intention of this thread Still, after all that work, they didn't come up with anything that would appear to work any better for Open pistol application. For rifle, and revolvers, though, sure seems effective...

[JRBean]

Here's an interesting comp design that seems to go along with this thread. Rescomp Technologies. They seem to have been doing some research of their own and come up with a design that is a little outside the box.

[Radical Precision Designs]

"Putting stuff on a computer" is not necessarily the same as performing the art and science of mechanical engineering.

Mechanical Design, while a vital ingredient for Western civillization is not the same as Mechanical Engineering.

Still waiting...

Hint: It all starts with the formula for conservation of momentum.

Eric-

You have a good point here. Many people have the misconception that a computer and a "CAD" program can do anything including "inventing". CAD stands for Computer Assisted Design, and is by no means of the imagination intended/meant to be Computer "Invented" Design. In a computer program it is a "human" who inputs the data and parameters/rules for that program to evolve. That program will "assist" in developing, but the "vision" remains with the "ingredients" which may or may not have been taken into account. Specific initial data (origin/validity ????) has to be written in, and then the game starts ... but in which direction? Ten software writers will have twenty or more different opinions as to what the outcome should be. So, what would be asked of this program that would reflect the actual needs? Not that it could not be done, but that it has to be done by someone that can also be able to do it "without " the computer. After all, at the present, the computer is there to assist in deciding, but not to decide the final outcome.

Usually, as an engineer/designer, you identify a need and set a goal. Then by the use of your "arsenal" of knowledge/sources select some "modular" information/components that you can borrow from as to affinity with your goal. Then you do your "numbers/calculations/projections" and go to work. Yes, there is trial and error, because there is no specific blueprint, untill you make one. There can be no end without a beginning. An invention is really a discovery of something that existed in the realm of possibilities, but you were not aware of it untill you unravelled/exposed it into view and understanding. When something such as this is finally done, mostly we smack our heads and say: "This is so simple, how come I didn't think about it before?"

As for the formula for conservation and momentum ( if that really is the key?), don't expect it to be really/completely discussed here, for it would be considered "propietary" for the time being.

Some of "these" formula variations exist already and are available. Most are not really cheap/inexpensive. Most end users have a a $$ number they are willing to pay, and very often these "newfangled" designs are harder to manufacture and will not fit that budget. This in itself can discourage proliferation of new designs. Also, preconceived ideas as to what a compensator should "look like" based unfairly on present designs will make acceptance of something that looks "radically" different a little harder to accept untill you get it rammed down your throat by experience and exposure to it. You could say that while we ask for these new designs to materialize, when they appear we strongly initially oppose them, and stick to our old ones. Then we ask our old ones to perform like the new ones??? I think we need a swift kick in our collective "arses" to help wake up.

I doubt you will find any 'smith, engineer/designer posting their hard worked specifics in here for various reasons, including advertising restraints, other than some hints into their work, if at all.

Still waiting????

[Bear1142]

Flex,

Where did you get those quotes? Can you post a link to the site?

Never mind, I found it.

Erik

Edited July 11, 2006 by Bear1142

[BrianH]

Here's an interesting comp design that seems to go along with this thread. Rescomp Technologies. They seem to have been doing some research of their own and come up with a design that is a little outside the box.

That's actually not a new idea. I made one John Nagel designed for a Glock like that 3 years ago.

[EricW]

As for the formula for conservation and momentum ( if that really is the key?), don't expect it to be really/completely discussed here, for it would be considered "propietary" for the time being.

OK....

m1*v1 + m2*v2 +.... + mn*vn = m1'*v1' + m2'*v2' * +.... + mn'*vn'

There it is. The secret of the universe revealed. So, somebody sue me for revealing their "trade secret." Provoke me more, and I'll post the equation for conservation of energy and the ideal gas law.

[Matt Cheely]

m1*v1 + m2*v2 +.... + mn*vn = m1'*v1' + m2'*v2' * +.... + mn'*vn'

Oh no! Now everyone who skipped highschool physics is in on the secret!

[Guy Neill]

While it has been a while since I doodled with comp design, momentum will not get you really far other than telling you how effective the comp is, once the forces are measured. In designing the comp, fluid dymanics (Bernoulli equation) will come into play to describe the action of the gas. The momentum uses the entire mass (I assume of the gas) and the Bernoulli equation will use the mass flow rate. Normally, momentum is used as the starting point for calculating the recoil of the entire gun.

This automatically (intuitively?) indicates why more gas (more gas flow rate) makes a more effective comp.

Guy

[Bob Hostetter]

Using fluid dynamic's might give you flawed data because fluids don't compress (at least at the pressures we are discussing here) and gas/air does. If you force a noncompressable medium against a nonmovable object you will get a larger transfer of energy then if you do the same with a compressable medium. Also if you have a equal volume of fluid and gas moving at the same velocity the fluid has much more mass and thus more momentum.

If I were to guess I would think that most of our current comp's are designed around fluid dynamic's instead of air pressure waves and that is why we don't have more effective comp's. I think we need to look more in the direction of capturing gasous wave impulse's and extracting the maximum amount of energy from them instead of attempting to create a nozzle effect which would be more effective with a fluid. Once we can capture the energy from the wave front then we can manipulate that energy to make it do what we want which is to offset the momentum imparted to the frame by the slide striking the frame at its rearward most point of travel.

But then again, I'm just guessing.............

[EricW]

You guys are making this waaay to complicated.

I would expect a competent engineer to be able to sit down with a cup of joe, pencil, and a couple napkins and come up with the following:

- Optimum # of baffles. There has to be a point at which adding baffles provides little benefit. It's probably as simple as "half-life" math. i.e. Baffle #1 diverts 50% of the gas, #1, 50% of the remainder...and so on. (the numbers are just for the sake of argument, OK?)

- Optimum baffle size for the given muzzle pressure and bullet diameter. i.e., for a bullet of diameter X, a baffle diameter of 4.7X is optimal. (the numbers are just for the sake of argument, OK?)

- Optimum baffle geometry - Is slamming gas into a flat surface really the most optimal way to redirect it? Is there a better configuration that generates less noise?

- The bernoulli effect. Rocket nozzles are shaped the way they are for a reason. Since you're basically strapping a rocket to the front of your pistol in order to counteract it's momentum, would not similar principles that maximize the momentum of the gas apply?

Once again...this requires ENGINEERING...which is an entirely different animal than hunting and pecking. The question is: "What is the *optimal* solution?" Once we have an answer to that question, then one can go about the work of translating those results into a device that fits the rules and/or the application. And the answer to momentum transfer and fluid dynamics will have very little to do with personal opinion other than some initial assumptions to simplify the mathematics.

You'll know when someone has actually solved the problem, because their response will have little to no verbage to the effect of "hydrogenating the quadrature orbits of the superheated gas electricical valences."

[Guy Neill]

Eric, that may be Venturi effect, not Bernoulli effect, for nozzles. A Venturi is simply a converging diverging nozzle. What you may be envisioning is a jetting action of the gases producing thrust through the nozzle, but that would add to recoil, and is accounted for in the common recoil formula, adding to the momentum.

Bob, for engineering/physics purposes, gases are fluids. It's accounted for in the mass flow rate. What we think of as real fluids, such as water, have a much higher mass flow rate than those things we think of as gases, such as air. Pressure waves occur in water (all fluids) as well - i.e. water hammer in plumbing.

For redirecting gases, airfoils would be the best, but it's unlikely there is adequate room in the size constraints in pistols to effectively use airfoils, though I have thought thay may lend themselves to providing downthrust in the comp, to a degree.

Still, much plays out simply to F = PA, as was discussed early in this thread. If you know the pressure (P) and the area (A) it works against, you know the force (F). If this is applied to the ports, you can equalize the force from each port, again, as mentioned early in, but that says nothing about the impingement of the gas against the baffle plate. If you use it to caculate the force against the baffle, you still have to account for the force acting against the back of the comp since the pressure will act in all directions.

Realistically, a lot of research has gone into comp design, but we have not seen it, that I know of. During World War II, we took over German research facilities that had many experimental tank gun comps. Without computers, much was done trial and error. You can also be certain that the comps seen on present tank guns were engineered. Of course, they have a lot more gas to work with, along with more recoil to counter.

As has also been mentioned, economics plays a big part. Perhaps a Maxim or Sionics suppressor would make a better comp, but the size, complexity, and added Federal red tape adds greatly to the expense, not to mention legality by jurisdiction.

For optimal effect, a comp would need be designed per cartridge. Better yet, per load. But that doesn't mean it would sell. The added cost, combined with the way different people have a different sense of "feel" for recoil when shooting means that particular design will not satisfy everyone. Liken that to the arguments for light bullets going fast and heavy bullets going slow. There are people advocating each. Neither is wrong, they simply have differences in what "feels" best to them.

So, in truth, the best, most effeicint comp will still have some not preferring it over something else.

Guy

[EricW]

I meant Bernoulli. The venturi effect is simply a special case of the Bernoulli effect. Solid rocket motors use constricted nozzles to increase the gas exit velocity and thus increase thrust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect

p = mv

Edited July 11, 2006 by EricW

[wsimpso1]

Wesselman, you crack me up. And Hostetter, you have too narrow a definition of fluids and inadequate appreciation of the complexities imposed by thermodynamics.

Credentials - I have a BSME, five years working for R&D at Remington Arms, then collected an MSME while doing research in computational fluid dynamics (designing elements), and am now doing fluids and vibration isolation for a living.

Fluids encompass both liquids and gases. In a lot of the FEA (Finite Element Analysis) the deformation of solids as the computational currency, although CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) tends to work in other forms.

To do this correctly, you do need compressible fluid models that also take into account thermodynamic limitations (sonic velocity, energy available, flow around discontinuities, etc). One of the big things is that the gases accelerate towards their sonic velocities whle they are expanding, cooling adiabatically, and their sonic velocities are coming down with the temperature and pressure which is reducing their motivation. You want to recover the maximum momentum, which means that you want to let it get up to speed before you turn it, but the longer you let it get up to speed the slower it wants to go, so you have to catch each batch at its best spot... Then you have to turn it to give the muzzle a shove in the best direction. Ultimately, which direction you want it to shove can become quite empirical too.

Yeah, making up a virtual screening experiment then a full up virtual designed experiment that covers all of the design and operation variables, modeling the resulting comps, running them on the models and analyzing them is possible. Heck, I would bet that somewhere the fluid modeling, complete with the conservation of momentum, thermodynamics, and everything else, exists somewhere. You could also build some of the comps, instrument them, and check if your models represent reality. If they do, then you could lean on designed experiment results and build the ultimate comp for rifle and pistol.

Another way is to go about the Buckingham PI methods of defining what is going on, and eventually deterimine for your self what variables are important, in which way, and how to apply them.

That sounds like a awfull lot of work. And then you get to enter a crowded cost driven market of a few thousand nut cases who mostly are not worried about making their Open Pistol work with less recoil and flip and even fewer who are not worried about their Open or Tactical Rifle moving less than it already does...

I would rather load ammo, go to range, go flying, and work on the homebuilt airplane. EricW, that my friend is why no one has done it. Too little payoff for too much fuss and cost.

Remember that you can get together with a few buddies, spend a couple hundred dollars a piece, buy one of each that is out there, test drive them all, and then buy the one that you like best for your blaster.

And you know what? Max Michel and Travis Thomasie are still going to burn down the stages way faster than you can. So will Brian Enos. They spent their time on the range and dry firing...

Billski

[Guy Neill]

Yeah, detail I forgot from Fluids. I remembered something about Venturi, and something about Bernoulli, and should have put it together that the Venturi was a special case of Bernoulli, but that's part of the problem with going on memory.

Guy

[Radical Precision Designs]

Eric, that may be Venturi effect, not Bernoulli effect, for nozzles. A Venturi is simply a converging diverging nozzle. What you may be envisioning is a jetting action of the gases producing thrust through the nozzle, but that would add to recoil, and is accounted for in the common recoil formula, adding to the momentum.

Bob, for engineering/physics purposes, gases are fluids. It's accounted for in the mass flow rate. What we think of as real fluids, such as water, have a much higher mass flow rate than those things we think of as gases, such as air. Pressure waves occur in water (all fluids) as well - i.e. water hammer in plumbing.

For redirecting gases, airfoils would be the best, but it's unlikely there is adequate room in the size constraints in pistols to effectively use airfoils, though I have thought thay may lend themselves to providing downthrust in the comp, to a degree.

Still, much plays out simply to F = PA, as was discussed early in this thread. If you know the pressure (P) and the area (A) it works against, you know the force (F). If this is applied to the ports, you can equalize the force from each port, again, as mentioned early in, but that says nothing about the impingement of the gas against the baffle plate. If you use it to caculate the force against the baffle, you still have to account for the force acting against the back of the comp since the pressure will act in all directions.

Realistically, a lot of research has gone into comp design, but we have not seen it, that I know of. During World War II, we took over German research facilities that had many experimental tank gun comps. Without computers, much was done trial and error. You can also be certain that the comps seen on present tank guns were engineered. Of course, they have a lot more gas to work with, along with more recoil to counter.

As has also been mentioned, economics plays a big part. Perhaps a Maxim or Sionics suppressor would make a better comp, but the size, complexity, and added Federal red tape adds greatly to the expense, not to mention legality by jurisdiction.

For optimal effect, a comp would need be designed per cartridge. Better yet, per load. But that doesn't mean it would sell. The added cost, combined with the way different people have a different sense of "feel" for recoil when shooting means that particular design will not satisfy everyone. Liken that to the arguments for light bullets going fast and heavy bullets going slow. There are people advocating each. Neither is wrong, they simply have differences in what "feels" best to them.

So, in truth, the best, most effeicint comp will still have some not preferring it over something else.

Guy

Thank you Guy-

Sometimes when the use of "blinders" is promoted with regards to new technology, those who use them will not see what is in front of their eyes. Verbage or not, illustrations can be helpfull when direct talking is not possible.

There is more than one formula to achieve this, and accepting that is essential to "remove this blinders" and recognize what is in plain sight rather than continue to ask to be shown, again, and again.

For years I busted my arse doing R&D. I started fresh out while still going to engineering school and continued on after, looking for that silly "hoy grail" of a comp. Heck, I was doing even when nobody really cared about it. Do you really believe that after all of that I am (or anybody else) going to dissect the specifics here for a worldwide audience?

I will give you this. My findings brought me into micro-managing the gas pressures while still confined in the barrel where they are more predictable and less succeptible to variances not started with. I call my system Hyper-Jet because I utilize some managed jets to expand in a confined area and create a venturi to guide a more open jet against a baffle. This is accomplished per each balanced section (not really chambers) with a calculated diameter to promote the best venturi to volume expected. Pressures in the ports/sections are self regulating, increasing or decreasing according to the actual dwell times of the available "burns". (A burn is what you get after you pull the trigger, simplified.) By managing the high pressure rather than the low you can tap into a more predictable, controlable source to use both to create downward pressure and ram against a baffle as you expand it to soften recoil. It does require a larger area, but it can be done within the normal length of the barrel. I prefer to use a sligthly longer barrel to augment my bullet speed or recover any losses. But seeing that many shooters are "hybridizing" their barrels anyway, this actually uses less space than a conventional hibrid set-up. I usually add between two to three conventional chambers in front of it , at barrels end to further utilize the still remaining high pressure and expanding volumes of gases. This is a time consuming job and expensive to manufacture, although it will last indefinetely, or as long as your barrel anyway. And it works exremely well. And I hope Admin doesn't get mad at me for posting this.

Yes, it is very different from anything normally used. But think of it like this. Early on I got my inspiration from various suppressor systems, mainly the original Maxim. But later on I discovered that the best suppressor system was the one that was built-in using the entire barrel rather than the one you attached at the end of the barrel. Like they say: I saw the light...

Edited July 11, 2006 by Radical Precision Designs

[JRBean]

Here's an interesting comp design that seems to go along with this thread. Rescomp Technologies. They seem to have been doing some research of their own and come up with a design that is a little outside the box.

That's actually not a new idea. I made one John Nagel designed for a Glock like that 3 years ago.

I'm seem to remember seeing something like that on a glock now that you mention it. I'll bet you didn't have a catchy name for yours like "Internally Balanced Flow System" though.

Seriously guys comp design is quite simple . The real key to an open gun is going be the powder. What we really need is a chemist to come up with a powder that creates pressure at a low temp with a slow building pressure curve, and at a low noise level. The guys at Vectan came pretty close to this with SP2 , but it has become basically unavailable to us.

If you look around there are several types of comp designs. Some integrated in the barrel,

some have fancy names for the chamber design, some claim to be the best. The one constant is they will not perform the same from powder to powder. If you want a comp to work you must match it to a powder that will work with the comp design. It doesn't matter how many formulas you throw at it or flow air through it or liquid through it, or run a computer program on it. The big question is what will it do on the end of a barrel with a given load.

If someone has a design they think is the next best thing lets see it. I don't really see where it would be considered advertising as long as a price and a request to buy it from you isn't included. You'd simply be sharing new technology.

[XRe]

The guys at Vectan came pretty close to this with SP2 , but it has become basically unavailable to us.

Doesn't matter - some of us wouldn't buy it, anyway... heh heh...

If you want a comp to work you must match it to a powder that will work with the comp design.

Of course, it's the whole system that you must match the load to - and that particular gun, as well. Ports in the barrel will affect things, the spring rates, how the FP stop is cut where it engages the hammer, etc, etc, etc... all of that changes how the gun appears to perform to the shooter.

I think the point of the thread, though, is that given some computer horsepower, and the right thinking skills, one could gin up a design that will be extremely efficient - with basically any load (though there will obviously be one or two powders that work best with that system...), on basically any gun.

The big question is what will it do on the end of a barrel with a given load.

+1

If someone has a design they think is the next best thing lets see it.

RDP has posted some pics of his design on another thread - have to be careful, though, as the mods tend to err on the side of caution with regards to what's advertising. I think he was told to cool the hype on the HyperJet a bit, so....

[Flexmoney]

For the record...the staff here is pretty happy when people "share information". What they don't like to see is the posts that say "I make/sell that...give me a call".

If you are exchanging info...go for it. If you are advertising...it doesn't belong.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[edited to fix typos]

[shred]

Hmm. I think I'll make a comp shaped like a Hilsch vortex tube. Might not control recoil very well, but the blast of cold air will be really welcome in the Texas summers (or, say, Barry during any Nationals)

[eric nielsen]

The John Nagel comp mentioned by BrianH above, see link to Rescomp's version - that comp worked TOO well for John's open glock.

The glock design has a limitation on how light you can go on recoil spring & not back the slide out of battery as you pull the trigger. Go lower than about 12lbs & you'll have problems. John had to cut some of the gigantic baffles off of that comp to allow enough rearward momentum to work the 9Major gun with a 12lb spring. The comp was keeping the gun locked up like a bolt-action rifle.

Same "too much of a good thing" might happen to an STI/1911 if you put on a comp that's as big as some of the Japanese Bianchi & Steel Challenge revolvers. You *could* make the gun cycle with, say, a 4lb recoil spring but then you'd need some pretty special feed ramp polishing to make that gun go for a whole match.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...=post&id=28

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...=post&id=29

Edited July 12, 2006 by eric nielsen

[tazshooter]

The John Nagel comp mentioned by BrianH above, see link to Rescomp's version - that comp worked TOO well for John's open glock.

The glock design has a limitation on how light you can go on recoil spring & not back the slide out of battery as you pull the trigger. Go lower than about 12lbs & you'll have problems. John had to cut some of the gigantic baffles off of that comp to allow enough rearward momentum to work the 9Major gun with a 12lb spring. The comp was keeping the gun locked up like a bolt-action rifle.

Same "too much of a good thing" might happen to an STI/1911 if you put on a comp that's as big as some of the Japanese Bianchi & Steel Challenge revolvers. You *could* make the gun cycle with, say, a 4lb recoil spring but then you'd need some pretty special feed ramp polishing to make that gun go for a whole match.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...=post&id=28

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...=post&id=29

Erick that looks pretty cool for a Glock. Yet, though I use Glock for my daily carry I like the old 1911 model or 2011 as in this case for competition.

The system I use or have been actually testing because is not yet completed was built by Venri d'Aiguillon from Radical Precision Design. He gave me the gun for about 2 weeks to test it and provide feedback in the event that I were to want something changed before he finished it.

Yet, I loved it so much that I had to take pictures of it and share. The gun is a shorty. However, the gun shoots and feels like all the full size comp guns I have fired.

The design is unique and works very efficiently. I loaded some rounds for it before Venri gave it to me try in 115 grain and 121 grain using Vihta 3n37 (still pending to try 3n38) and the gun shot and cycled flawlessly.

Like a kid I reluctantly had to give the gun back to Venri for it to be finished, but I am dying to get it back.

I told Venri not to change anything it is awesome as is.

Here are some picks.

Take care and happy shooting.

Edited July 13, 2006 by tazshooter

[Bear1142]

Being a closet physics fan, I do find all of this pretty interesting, but let's get back to the task at hand. I appreciate that all of these different formulas have bearing on a design from a laboratory perspective where number values can be quantitatively determined, but what about reality? I mean there may be a real numerical difference in how effective a compensator design is, but what about the practical reality of the design. Even the most accomplished shooters could probably observe no difference in a design that was 90% efficient compared to 85%. Clearly one is better than the other, but with no practical difference how much does it matter? Especially if the 85% is easier to manufacture. All of this discussion about which formulas to use is interesting, but are we splitting hairs?

Lets try to move the discussion back to the simplified questions that Eric asked,

- Optimum # of baffles. There has to be a point at which adding baffles provides little benefit. It's probably as simple as "half-life" math. i.e. Baffle #1 diverts 50% of the gas, #1, 50% of the remainder...and so on. (the numbers are just for the sake of argument, OK?)

- Optimum baffle size for the given muzzle pressure and bullet diameter. i.e., for a bullet of diameter X, a baffle diameter of 4.7X is optimal. (the numbers are just for the sake of argument, OK?)

- Optimum baffle geometry - Is slamming gas into a flat surface really the most optimal way to redirect it? Is there a better configuration that generates less noise?

Again, I appreciate the spirited discussion and I respect anybody's decision to not disclose any proprietary ideas or design, but are there any design parameters we can generally agree upon (Regarding Eric's post or any other design parameters.)

Erik

Edited July 14, 2006 by Bear1142

[XRe]

but are there any design parameters we can generally agree upon (Regarding Eric's post or any other design parameters.)

Yes, I think so.... Must have at least one baffle with a hole slightly over the size of the bore?? Ok, kidding, but...

For pistol comps, what I've gathered in the thread is that the first couple of chambers are possibly more important than the others. Something in the neighborhood of a bullet caliber between the muzzle and the back of the first baffle, and the same distance between the front of the first baffle and the back of the second baffle (say 9-12mm) seems to be an agreed upon best compromise to allow the gasses to expand and accelerate at the temperature they're at, and then redirect them at an optimal point. Chambers further out would benefit from longer spacing. Chambers spaced longer than the bearing surface on the bullet used may lead to some destabilization of the bullet as gasses rush past the bullet while its in the comp.

Various optimizations can be made, efficiencies gained, and adjustments to the way the gun tracks can be effected, depending on exact design and implementation.

Just what this non-ME type has picked up along the way Feel free to argue now

[Patrick Sweeney]

EricW and Billski, I love it when you guys talk dirty. We have problems here besides gas flow, however. Two mechnaical, and one mental. The slide is going to bottom out, which adds its own mechanical component to recoil. That and bore axis height will make some elements of recoil non-reducable. Unless you can tune a comp so it pre-drops the muzzle before the slide bottoms out, bringing the dot back up. Or pre-down enough so slide movement balances out.

The mental one is that no two shooters can agree on what constitutes a "flat" or "soft" shooting gun. Take a perfectly engineered and precisely gas-flow metered comp and have ten shooters try it and you'll get eleven ideas of how it would be "better." And at least five different spring weight suggestions.

I too took my degree and applied it to comps, and then carved test comps. (My first AR comp pushed the muzzle about a foot down on each shot.) In the end, I came to the conclusion that there wasn't much difference between the best, and it all depending on what you wanted, liked, and expected.

But please don't let me stop you. Even if this does not produce a better comp, the discussion is interesting.