I heard that and was honestly surprised to hear him say that. I think he/US do not understand the physics and are learning through pure brute force due to being able to print so many prototypes. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing and can net out to the same result as someone who does, but I still found that odd. Tightening the bore creates more back pressure in the system which in turn will make the reflex more efficient.
When I was designing and building cans, I spent years studying theory, patents, cross-sections and every available public resource… in the 2018-2020 timeframe there were some oustanding resources in the form of forums that no longer exist that were a wealth of information. RIP Dr. Dater.
I would guess without seeing the cross-section of the Airlock, it is a coaxial design which is why it is so efficient for size. It’s form factor and performance is very similar to the Delta P Brevis, which was one of the pioneers in 3D printed suppressors and achieved its performance using a coaxial baffle system.
I think that you hit the nail on the head with Unknown Suppressors - brute force by prototyping.
It's one way to skin a cat, but maybe not the most efficient. And US had to backtrack statements against smaller aperture size helping suppression? That's not confidence inspiring to hear, with US being so adamant against it prior. And the fact that some people may have placed orders, based on that overconfidence?
That stated, US said that they were trying to get the OG out ASAP, and that it wouldn't be for everyone. Something like, "We made it for ourselves"?
In one of the threads (OG testing or UM/S2H/Suppressors/Scope), I asked US if analysis tools like CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) or FEA (Finite Element Analysis) were used. IIRC, the response was, "No". They were going to use "destructive testing" instead, but that didn't really answer the question in terms of what is gained from analysis.
And I don't recall any destructive test results being reported. Only what I would call an overload test (depending on design spec) using a 33XC?
Destructive testing implies that the sample was taken to failure, to determine its limits. Not sure if there were typos, or lack of understanding regarding standard test terminology. Also not confidence inspiring, but maybe I missed the actual destruction part somewhere?
I'm not a suppressor expert, but have experience in sound mitigation using silencers as a Noise Engineer, and tools like CFD can prove beneficial for product dev.
Simple example of CFD for those interested, below. Note, I don't know the creator nor endorsing him or the validity of the sim. Just showing what CFD looks like for those that haven't seen it.