[brycelarson]

Hi guys,

I ran the LSET test on the G6R using a Ninja SLP and a standard Ninja reg. The Protege results are coming soon.

Here are the data sheets:

SLP - https://spreadsheets...=en&output=html
Standard Reg - https://spreadsheets...=en&output=html

Here's the video:

This post has been edited by brycelarson: 24 January 2011 - 07:35 PM

[cockerpunk]

what output was teh standard reg?

[NDomipolo]

pretty cool to see a good comparison,not that big of a difference but it probably adds up once you shoot tons of paint,but not to big of a difference

[Danny D]

How many replicates did you do for the test? Are the values shown averages? If thats only a single data point for each reg, i dont think you can make any usable conclusions from it.

Interesting test though. Thanks for doing it!

PS> the vid link is absent

This post has been edited by Danny D: 24 January 2011 - 01:31 PM

[Leafy]

So looks like real world numbers they come out to be the same? weird.

Also where did the break in thread go, I got the email and then I get a board message with the email link.

[brycelarson]

I closed the break in thread until I have time to upload the vid. I'll open it back up.

Cocker - Ninja reg measures 780 on the nose.

Danny - think of it this way - there are more than 90 individual events recorded in that number. The sample size is already large. any odd performance will be cancelled out by the large sample size.

I can certainly do it again later but when I've done these tests in the past replication hasn't changed the results. It tends to be a very stable test - assuming the gun is working right and this one is.

[IhasAcellular]

Wasnt the big deal with the slp reg to be able to shoot "deeper" into the tank, and really shine when the tank was below 1000 psi?

This post has been edited by IhasAcellular: 24 January 2011 - 02:12 PM

[brycelarson]

IhasAcellular, on 24 January 2011 - 02:06 PM, said:

Wasnt the big deal with the slp reg to be able to shoot "deeper" into the tank, and really shine when the tank was below 1000 psi?

I don't know. From this it looks like there's a slight improvement in the top of the tank - but the bottom is the bottom.

[Danny D]

brycelarson, on 24 January 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

Danny - think of it this way - there are more than 90 individual events recorded in that number. The sample size is already large. any odd performance will be cancelled out by the large sample size.

I can certainly do it again later but when I've done these tests in the past replication hasn't changed the results. It tends to be a very stable test - assuming the gun is working right and this one is.

So what your saying is you did the test 90 times (shooting from 2000-1000psi x 90), and the number displayed is the average? If thats the case, well done!!! I dont think you should do any more testing, as thats a tonne, and the numbers displayed should be representative of the actual mean.

[brycelarson]

Danny D, on 24 January 2011 - 02:23 PM, said:

So what your saying is you did the test 90 times (shooting from 2000-1000psi x 90), and the number displayed is the average? If thats the case, well done!!! I dont think you should do any more testing, as thats a tonne, and the numbers displayed should be representative of the actual mean.

no, what I'm saying is that in a shot string of 90+ shots you're already accounting for operational glitches in the system. I shot from 2k down to 1k and 1k down to 220 fps once on the standard reg, once on the SLP reg.

In past usage of the LSET unless something isn't working with the gun repetition of the test doesn't result in much variation. If a few of the shots use more gas - then it's likely that a few will use less. In something like this where we're counting a large-ish sample size the overall results tend to be quite accurate.

[Danny D]

Your sample size is 1 for each of the 4 treatments. If it were any more than 1 you would be able to measure variance, which you cannot. If you would like more clarity in your data, id suggest running the test a couple times. Especially since your using a 13ci tank. I believe the LSET was designed for larger tanks (68ci) and would allow for more balls to be shot per treatment.

13 ci is a great shortcut, I would do the same, but id just suggest repeating the test a few times to make sure there isnt any variation. This would give you a larger "sample size" or replicates as they are called and would allow you to be more confident in any conclusion you make. I know you guys spend a lot of time on these tests but i think it would be the best option to complete the test.

This post has been edited by Danny D: 24 January 2011 - 02:56 PM

[brycelarson]

Danny D, on 24 January 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

Your sample size is 1 for each of the 4 treatments. If it were any more than 1 you would be able to measure variance, which you cannot. If you would like more clarity in your data, id suggest running the test a couple times. Especially since your using a 13ci tank. I believe the LSET was designed for larger tanks (68ci) and would allow for more balls to be shot per treatment.

13 ci is a great shortcut, I would do the same, but id just suggest repeating the test a few times to make sure there isnt any variation. This would give you a larger "sample size" or replicates as they are called and would allow you to be more confident in any conclusion you make. I know you guys spend a lot of time on these things but i think it would be the best option to complete the test.

actually, no the LSET (Larson Standard Efficieny Test (as in Bryce Larson )) works great on a 13ci tank. It gives numbers large enough to see variation when you make adjustments etc - but small enough to make it handy.

I'll pick up some more paint and when I do the tests on the Protege for reference I'll chuck some more paint through the G6R.

And yes, in the past I have done it a multiple times on the same gun. There just isn't variation. Any gun that's getting good consistency (which this G6R was) will produce very similar numbers repetition after repetition.

[Danny D]

Thanks bryce

[LieutenantDan]

zomg! that's amazing! getting slp reg now

it's an improvement but it's so efficient anyway, 50 bucks?

[lovebunny]

wont the slp shoot deaper in to the tank? then the std reg?

[brycelarson]

lovebunny, on 24 January 2011 - 05:55 PM, said:

wont the slp shoot deaper in to the tank? then the std reg?

didn't seem to. both regs choked the gun below 220 fps at 125-150 psi in the tank.

[MIBaller]

Can anyone straight explain why the G6R get better effcieny on SLP the standard HP.

[shutts67]

Magic. Ninja and BL both said that they couldn't explain it, but it happened, I believe.

[Danny D]

Im guessing its shoot down. The lower output one might experience more shootdown at higher rof than the higher output reg. Thats probably why it seems more "efficient" according to bob + ninja.

Just my theory. Feel free to tear it apart.

This post has been edited by Danny D: 24 January 2011 - 08:07 PM

[brycelarson]

Danny D, on 24 January 2011 - 07:09 PM, said:

Im guessing its shoot down. The lower output one might experience more shootdown at higher rof than the higher output reg. Thats probably why it seems more "efficient".

Just my theory. Feel free to tear it apart.

just posted the video - the way we do the LSET there's no shootdown. It's possible that the SLP chokes the gun in high ROF situations giving it artificially inflated efficiency - but check the video for how we do these.

The SLP on the G6R shows a theoretical 2300-ish shots from a 68/45.