AmericanLongRifles Forums

General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: Daryl Pelfrey on March 05, 2019, 06:28:39 PM

Title: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Daryl Pelfrey on March 05, 2019, 06:28:39 PM
Has anyone cones the outside of the flash hole liner where it faces the Pan? If so did it help speed up ignition.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: wattlebuster on March 05, 2019, 07:38:10 PM
All my liners are Chambers white lightning. They are coned on the inside. No need to cone the outside
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Hungry Horse on March 05, 2019, 09:26:32 PM
Way back when touch hole liners were pretty much a s.s. set screw with a hole in it, I coned a touch hole liner from the outside. Since I only did one, and really didn’t know what I was doing, you can take it for what it’s worth. I found little or no improvement over no coming at all. I don’t know why it didn’t seem to vastly improve the ignition, but it didn’t. A short time later somebody did a how to, in the Buckskin Report, on how to make a liner with an internal cone. I bought a stick of 1/4-28 s.s. allthread and went into production.

 Hungry Horse
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Daryl on March 05, 2019, 10:22:04 PM
Has anyone cones the outside of the flash hole liner where it faces the Pan? If so did it help speed up ignition.
I suggest:

1/.-remove the cheap liner
2/.-go to Jim chambers site and purchase the correct size liner with proper drill (to clean up the 1/4x28 hole) and tap
3/.- install Chambers liner
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: EC121 on March 06, 2019, 12:26:55 AM
I have occasionally coned the outside.  Usually when I find a flash channel that is longer than I like.  It seems to help some, but I do it only after drilling the hole to the proper size and checking the length of the channel.  No idea how much it helps, but I feel better about it.  :)  If I can't see powder almost right up against flat, it is too long.  I just turn a bit by hand to countersink the outside.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Turtle on March 06, 2019, 12:38:14 AM
 I install white lightnings so that when bottomed they are proud of the barrel. Then I file them down flush with the barrel. This shortens the small hole going to the coned area.  I think a shorter distance to the cone helps ignition-can't prove it though. This hasn't shortened the life of the liners I have installed.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Joe S on March 06, 2019, 01:03:55 AM
According to Larry Pletcher's testing, neither internal nor external cones have a meaningful impact on ignition speed.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: D. Taylor Sapergia on March 06, 2019, 01:31:33 AM
The only externally coned vent I have ever seen was on a fowling gun by ... shoot, the name escapes me!  There was no liner - just a cone drilled into the side of the barrel.  Ignition was very poor.  So I installed a Chambers' liner and everything charged.  From lousy to almost instantaneous.  The beauty of the Chambers style liner is that the main charge is brought right out to the edge of the pan...you can see the charge in the vent.  The other style simply made a funnel for the pan flash, and it did nothing to shorten ignition over a simple drilled vent.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: hanshi on March 06, 2019, 02:05:36 AM
I've never used a White Lightning liner but all the liners in my guns are ss, including the spares I seem to have had around forever.  Any new liner I acquire, whether in a gun or just an extra, has two things done to it.  First I drill out the vent to 1/16".  Secondly, I enlarge the inside cone with a Dremel tool.  Maybe it helps and maybe it doesn't, but I get great ignition, though.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: OldMtnMan on March 06, 2019, 05:43:13 PM
According to Larry Pletcher's testing, neither internal nor external cones have a meaningful impact on ignition speed.

If that was true then the White Lightning wouldn't work, but there are too many satisfied customers to say that.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Pukka Bundook on March 06, 2019, 05:43:51 PM
Same here Hanshi,
I make my liners out of 3/8" stainless, and well coned out on the inside. (with a drill then at least  a 1/16" touchhole sometimes a 5/64".    A 'normal' liner near fits inside these, and ignition is very good.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Larry Pletcher on March 06, 2019, 06:55:19 PM
According to Larry Pletcher's testing, neither internal nor external cones have a meaningful impact on ignition speed.
If that was true then the White Lightning wouldn't work, but there are too many satisfied customers to say that.
I respectfully submit that I may have been misinterpreted. The "meaningful impact" is meaningful to me.  I use Chambers liners. I also like a counter sink spun by hand on the exterior of the vent - mainly to take away any burr left from drilling.

I have a flint gun vent made with an interior coning tool with a cutter meant to duplicate a Chambers cavity.  Tom Snyder, at the same time, included a "round-over bit" to make a gentle exterior opening. "Round-over bit" is my term and not Tom's, but it makes a very smooth, gentle vent opening.  I have not timed it, but feel it works very well. 

I don't like long vent holes and think the closer the pan powder and the charge are, the faster the ignition. I like to see the barrel charge peaking through the vent and the pan powder against the barrel flat as close as possible to the main charge. My opinion is that two charges that close together ignite as one charge.

The last work I did on vents is in the link below:
https://www.blackpowdermag.com/part-6-high-and-low-vent-experiments/ (https://www.blackpowdermag.com/part-6-high-and-low-vent-experiments/)
I spent more time on location of pan powder than on length of vent , but you get the idea.
Regards,
Pletch
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: OldMtnMan on March 06, 2019, 07:47:34 PM
Very good Larry.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Joe S on March 06, 2019, 08:34:33 PM
From Pletcher's data:

White Lightening vs Straight Hole

(https://i.ibb.co/mNLzns7/a.png) (https://ibb.co/Z2nTQsC)

The mean White Lightening liner ignition speed was faster than a straight hole, but only by 0.008 seconds. These means are not statistically significant (one-tailed Student’s T-test, p =  0.10161), which means that if you were to repeat this experiment, you may find that the average straight hole was faster than the White Lightening.

I stand corrected. "Meaningful" is an opinion. The correct phrasing is that there is no statistically significant difference between straight hole and the White Lightening.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: alacran on March 06, 2019, 09:41:44 PM
I have used Tom Snyder's coning tool on the last three flintlocks and like Larry I Think it works well. I used a tiny round diamond burr turned by hand to make a slight countersink.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: hanshi on March 06, 2019, 11:49:44 PM
As I mentioned previously, I really don't know whether interior coning is better than a straight hole or exterior coning; I've never tested to find this out.  But I'm convinced that the closer to the main charge is the prime, the better is the ignition.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Larry Pletcher on March 07, 2019, 12:07:41 AM
Jose,
I looked up in my records found the averages of 20 trials were the same as you mentioned.  My standard deviations are not the same as yours.  I won't claim to be a whiz in statistics, so I don't plan on defending the numbers in my articles. I do have faith in them.

Kind regards,
Pletch
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Joe S on March 07, 2019, 12:07:58 AM
Hanshi:   From Pletcher's data, there is no statistically significant difference between an external cone and a straight hole:

(https://i.ibb.co/DpTnqfW/aa.png) (https://imgbb.com/)

(For two-tailed T, P = 0.7541).
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Joe S on March 07, 2019, 12:12:10 AM
Larry - I don't know why our standard deviations are different. What did you find?

Maybe this evening I'll take a look and see why we got different numbers. Part of it may be that for the white lightening you had a total of 60 trials from all of your combined tests. The combined value is what I used. If you are looking at a standard deviation from just one set of 20, I would expect there to be some difference.

I also have faith in your numbers Larry. Your experiments are well designed and executed. By taking topics out of the realm of subjective observation, and making actual scientific measurements, you have made a huge contribution to the study of black powder guns.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Daryl on March 07, 2019, 12:56:20 AM
What was the length (wall thickness) of that straight hole.

Was it a 1/10" (some commercial guns) thickness of barrel at breech with a straight hole compare to a coned liner on the same thickness.

How does a 1/10" vent hole thickness/depth/length compare to  2/10" thickness hole/depth/length, or 1/4" thickness or depth of hole - all compared to a WL liner in each?

I think this sort of testing would hold more validity than saying A drilled hole vs. A WL liner - have "X" times - seems closer to "Y" times to me.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Joe S on March 07, 2019, 01:06:49 AM
You'd have to check with Larry on that. In his tests, he used the same barrel, so the results are comparable, but what the actual wall thickness was, I do not know.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Daryl on March 07, 2019, 01:39:01 AM
Seems to me that would be quite important.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Darkhorse on March 07, 2019, 07:54:49 AM
My first flintlock was a GPR and ignition was terrible. I never knew when it would go off, mostly it didn't. I looked closely at the metric liner and decided it was the culprit because of poor design the prime fire couldn't get to the charge. Now realize at this time I had never heard of a White Lightning liner so I just modified the lyman liner as I thought it should be.
It had a deep screw slot across the face and I used a ball endmill to cut a path through the slot and put a small chamfer in the touch hole. The results were like night and day. All of a sudden I had a rifle that would actually shoot when I pulled the trigger. I don't know if the outside chamfer helped any or not but the rifle went off so fast I included it on any liners I modified. And I modified quite a lot as most guys I knew with factory rifles had the same problem.
When I install a White Lightning I put a slight chamfer on the face with a hand held counter sink.
This is the drawing I made about 30 years ago when I was working out my modifications.
(https://i.ibb.co/xz69Mcj/MODIFIED-TOUCHHOLE-LINER.jpg)
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Daryl on March 09, 2019, 12:13:36 AM
With my WL liners in my 3 flinters, after loading I can look at the vent and see a powder granule through the opening.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Larry Pletcher on March 09, 2019, 03:22:19 AM
What was the length (wall thickness) of that straight hole.
Was it a 1/10" (some commercial guns) thickness of barrel at breech with a straight hole compare to a coned liner on the same thickness.
How does a 1/10" vent hole thickness/depth/length compare to  2/10" thickness hole/depth/length, or 1/4" thickness or depth of hole - all compared to a WL liner in each?
I think this sort of testing would hold more validity than saying A drilled hole vs. A WL liner - have "X" times - seems closer to "Y" times to me.
Daryl,
I feel as you do that wall thickness with a straight hole vent is important. I have a project in mind to see if I can find answers.  One idea is to use a barrel stub with a straight 1/16 vent.  The barrel wall at this point is perhaps irrelevant.  I would time the vent ignition.

Then I'd have .010" milled off the vent flat and retime.  Mill another .010" and time again. This timing and milling could be done a number of times to see if ignition times improve. My gut says that an improvement should eventually be seen, but I don't have data at this time.

 I don't know of a way to make the vent shorter in length other than the milling.  Because a lock plate is bolted to the flat, I think the whole flat would need to removed. Ideas?
----
Another test that I did not get done was with the web on a Tom Snyder milled vent. ON my gun I intended to cut the interior cavity in steps to leave a .040" vent web and time ignition.  Then unbreech and cut the cavity deeper, stopping with a .020" web and retime. I did not get this done.  The gun now has a .020" web, and I don't intent to cut the cavity closer to the surface than that.

There may be chances to get the straight vent/milling test done later.
Regards,
Pletch
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Joe S on March 09, 2019, 04:18:29 PM
Larry – I have an idea that may save some work milling the barrel:

Make a plug with the same thread as the white lightening, and a 0.062" hole, or whatever flash hole size you want to test. The initial length would be the same length as the maximum wall thickness that you want to test. After testing, remove the plug and shorten it to the next test length. You could do this a file and save the trouble of milling the barrel.

I don’t think it would be a problem if the plug initially intruded into the powder charge.

Speed is one thing, reliability is another. I have four flintlocks, a .54 and a 12 bore with white lightening vent liners, and two 10 bores with straight holes. The straight hole 10 bores are as fast and reliable as the white lightening liners, at least as far as I can tell. However, they have substantially larger flash holes. The flash holes in the white lightening liners are 0.062”. I started with 0.062“ holes in the 10 bores, but as I recall, the guns failed to fire at least half the time. I gradually enlarged the holes until I got reliable ignition at 0.081"

So, was the ignition speed of the 10 bores with a 0.062” flash hole the same as the speed with an 0.081” hole (that is, when the 0.062” hole managed to fire)? I have no idea, and I would not care to speculate, however, it seems possible that with thicker walled barrels, ignition speed may be a function of both barrel wall thickness and flash hole diameter.

The 10 bores are 1 1/4” at the breech, so 0.2375" wall thickness.
.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Daryl on March 09, 2019, 11:08:19 PM
Excellent idea on vent sizing and hole depth.  A large vent hole, so large it allows the powder close to the pan would of course, deliver virtually the same ignition speed.

2 problems with oversized vents, is pressure loss and also main powder charge loss if the hole is not plugged, or frizzen closed prior to shoving the ball down. The closed frizzen

was normal military loading sequence, but today, it frowned upon due to safety reasons.  Of course, to have a self-priming pan, an oversized vent hole is necessary, or extremely

fine powder, but also a closed frizzen.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: OldMtnMan on March 09, 2019, 11:24:27 PM
There's a side effect for a big vent hole. Flintlocks have less velocity than a caplock. I assume that's because pressure is lost out the vent hole. The bigger the hole the more velocity lost.

Am I correct in this?
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Joe S on March 10, 2019, 12:39:11 AM
Old MtnMan - I don't know anything about caplocks.

Daryl and Old MtnMan– I agree with you about safety issues with a self-priming gun, however I use 1F in my 10 bores. To get 1F to self-prime you would need an enormous hole.

Pressure is lost out of the vent, and, generally speaking, the bigger the hole, the more pressure that is lost. There is an anomaly, as noted. The easiest way to quantify pressure lost out of the vent is to measure projectile velocity. I have done some experiments with this. See:
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32573.msg312716#msg312716 (http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32573.msg312716#msg312716)

To summarize briefly, muzzle velocity increased when the flash hole was opened up from 0.062” to 0.067”, and thereafter decreased as hole size increased. The change from 0.062” to the maximum size tested (0.0995”) was relatively small, and would not have a significant impact on a hunting rifle. Perhaps a very high end bench shooter could detect a difference.

Here’s a table:

(https://i.ibb.co/1KmS0nS/A-Flash-Hole.png)

(Note to self – this table is not identical to the table in the link above, because the means for 0.062” were calculated from raw data, and means for other sizes were calculated from the regression equation.)

And here’s a graph:

(https://i.ibb.co/Yjr3Zbz/A-Flash-Hole-2.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Larry Pletcher on March 11, 2019, 03:08:00 AM
When I first saw this thread I knew I had an article on timing straight cylinder vents, but could not find it on my web site. I had to go back to old MuzzleBlasts copies to locate it.  I had to retype it, which is a struggle for me, but now have the text at the web link below. I'm having trouble locating the photos that accompanied the magazine article.  A summary chart will need to be redone, so it is still a work in progress.

https://www.blackpowdermag.com/touch-hole-ignition-timing/ (https://www.blackpowdermag.com/touch-hole-ignition-timing/)

Regards,
Pletch
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Dave R on March 11, 2019, 03:57:04 AM
Jose,
Interesting date you have compiled in your testing!!
Possibly I overlooked it what caliber and barrel length are you testing to come up
with this data??

Thanks!!
Dave R
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Larry Pletcher on March 11, 2019, 04:56:10 AM
After 19 years, I don't think I still have the barrel stub. I believe it was .50 or larger - seeing that we later used sabots in another test session.  It was probably 4-5 inches long. 

Regards,
Pletch
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Joe S on March 11, 2019, 02:55:30 PM
Dave R – there is a fairly long discussion here: http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32573.msg312716#msg312716 (http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32573.msg312716#msg312716)

The experiment conditions were: 

38” .50 caliber barrel (Getz)
70 grains Goex FF
Coned flash hole
15’ from muzzle to chronograph
Spit lubed 0.018” pillow ticking patch
0.495” Hornady ball
80 – 90 degrees F ambient temperature
Flat faced breech plug
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Daryl on March 11, 2019, 10:09:22 PM
Accuracy comes from consistency. If the vent hole is large or small, but the velocities are within 10fps, the load has the potential to be more accurate than a load that
has 30fps spread, shot to shot.  The longer the range, the worse the potential accuracy will be for the load with more spread.
From here, we could get into shot to shot velocity variations and how they are caused & how they can reduced.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: MuskratMike on March 12, 2019, 04:24:52 AM
Getting way way too complicated for this old man. Install Mr. Chambers White Lightning touch hole liner on all your guns you value. Fast, reliable, and last forever. End of subject.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Daryl on March 12, 2019, 11:54:29 PM
Getting way way too complicated for this old man. Install Mr. Chambers White Lightning touch hole liner on all your guns you value. Fast, reliable, and last forever. End of subject.

They do last a good spell. Only had to have 2 replaced so far. 
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Feltwad on March 13, 2019, 12:05:45 PM
All I used in the 1970,s was a common Allen screw  with the rear end filed back leaving a 1/16 wall through which I drilled a 1/16 hole  re tempered and they are still going with no signs of ware , not fancy but they do the job with a quick ignition
Feltwad

Allen screw touch hole
(https://i.ibb.co/6YZG06r/100-2314.jpg) (https://ibb.co/tBhnpyQ)
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Daryl on March 14, 2019, 12:24:05 AM
Is that a stub twist barrel, Feltwad?
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Feltwad on March 14, 2019, 12:53:20 AM
Is that a stub twist barrel, Feltwad?
Daryl

Not a stub twist just a plain iron barrel.
Feltwad
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Flint62Smoothie on March 14, 2019, 03:42:19 PM
Danny Caywood is the one who adds a large exterior cone to his touch holes and who is also vehemently opposed to liners ... his words, not mine.
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Dphariss on March 15, 2019, 06:11:54 AM
I like liners, I never do an exterior cone.  I prefer to make my own liners.  Have had "issues" with store bought.  This will greatly reduce the pressure on the threads compared to other installations. All done with drills and a counter bore that makes a flat bottomed hole that is correct for 12x32. Liner is drilled a few thousandths less then the hole into the bore its about .100". Gotta do the measurements to get the counter bore in the liner the right length to get the charge close to the prime.
(https://i.ibb.co/XDXT3F5/UNADJUSTEDNONRAW-thumb-38cd.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bF1n2Nv)

(https://i.ibb.co/z7ntJxG/UNADJUSTEDNONRAW-thumb-38d1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qWy25jk)

(https://i.ibb.co/mzKYS3y/UNADJUSTEDNONRAW-thumb-38d5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Lpyqv3g)

(https://i.ibb.co/bJBnZmB/UNADJUSTEDNONRAW-thumb-38d9.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Wty1w5y)

(https://i.ibb.co/YZnjzXm/UNADJUSTEDNONRAW-thumb-38db.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gVqg5dN)

(https://i.ibb.co/9bT9hPy/UNADJUSTEDNONRAW-thumb-38dd.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QPNFk0Y)

(https://i.ibb.co/JH9fkCh/UNADJUSTEDNONRAW-thumb-38e7.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dDRdK7h)


simple image uploader (https://imgbb.com/)

This can be done a well. But requires the vent to be removed to debreech.... This was a rebarrel of the rifle with a low set lock position.


(https://i.ibb.co/zRHn9KH/UNADJUSTEDNONRAW-thumb-4fff.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DCgVc3g)
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Dphariss on March 15, 2019, 06:21:24 AM
Old MtnMan - I don't know anything about caplocks.

Daryl and Old MtnMan– I agree with you about safety issues with a self-priming gun, however I use 1F in my 10 bores. To get 1F to self-prime you would need an enormous hole.

Pressure is lost out of the vent, and, generally speaking, the bigger the hole, the more pressure that is lost. There is an anomaly, as noted. The easiest way to quantify pressure lost out of the vent is to measure projectile velocity. I have done some experiments with this. See:
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32573.msg312716#msg312716 (http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32573.msg312716#msg312716)

To summarize briefly, muzzle velocity increased when the flash hole was opened up from 0.062” to 0.067”, and thereafter decreased as hole size increased. The change from 0.062” to the maximum size tested (0.0995”) was relatively small, and would not have a significant impact on a hunting rifle. Perhaps a very high end bench shooter could detect a difference.

(snip)

Was this a plain drilled vent or a liner with a counterbore?  I wonder if this would make a difference?
Interesting that the .067 gave higher velocity.  Just goes to show we don't know much about how a FL ignition system really works I guess.

Dan
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Dphariss on March 15, 2019, 06:24:39 AM
Old MtnMan - I don't know anything about caplocks.

Daryl and Old MtnMan– I agree with you about safety issues with a self-priming gun, however I use 1F in my 10 bores. To get 1F to self-prime you would need an enormous hole.

Pressure is lost out of the vent, and, generally speaking, the bigger the hole, the more pressure that is lost. There is an anomaly, as noted. The easiest way to quantify pressure lost out of the vent is to measure projectile velocity. I have done some experiments with this. See:
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32573.msg312716#msg312716 (http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32573.msg312716#msg312716)

To summarize briefly, muzzle velocity increased when the flash hole was opened up from 0.062” to 0.067”, and thereafter decreased as hole size increased. The change from 0.062” to the maximum size tested (0.0995”) was relatively small, and would not have a significant impact on a hunting rifle. Perhaps a very high end bench shooter could detect a difference.

(snip)

What happened to the velocity standard deviation? Testing has shown that accuracy suffers with vents much larger than .062...
Dan
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Joe S on March 15, 2019, 03:49:27 PM
Good questions Dan.

Quote
Was this a plain drilled vent or a liner with a counterbore? 

There is no counterbore. We could test this hypothesis, after turkey season.

Quote
What happened to the velocity standard deviation? Testing has shown that accuracy suffers with vents much larger than .062...

In the test data posted above, there are not enough data to say anything definitive about the standard deviation. However, I checked my notes and found that I had looked at this too. I’m getting too old – I had completely forgotten about that test….

The question of standard deviation was tested for 0.062” and 0.0995” flash holes. The average velocities were 1522 and 1417 FPS, and the standard deviations were 30 and 48 FPS, respectively. The difference in the standard deviations was statistically significant, so we can say with some confidence that variability really does increase when you change the flash hole from 0.062” and 0.0995”.

Here’s the data:

(https://i.ibb.co/vQbKFJX/A-Velocity.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
Title: Re: Coning flash hole liner
Post by: Skirmisher on March 27, 2019, 01:54:27 AM
For whatever little bit of good this does....  I have a sizable number of original flintlock guns.  A few have original touchholes in unaltered condition, and it seems that they were generally drilled at a forward angle, then reamed to form a long cone.  Don't know how this helps the modern enthusiast but this seems to have been the preferred approach in the days before touch hole liners were common except on fine fowlers.