[GrenadeMaster]

Spitlebug, on Apr 13 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

GrenadeMaster, on Apr 8 2009, 07:44 PM, said:

So you have proven it to be true that hpa is more consistent on an a-5. I would agree to that.

I do however think that it is VERY gun depedent.

For example my phantom is +-3 on c02 on a bad day... I have gotten +-1 at times. (I chrono and 3 shots read the exact same fps). On hpa I get +-10 on bad days. I will do a test replicating yours with my phantom tomorrow to see if this is true... but experience tells me it is.

---------------------------------

And I am moving this OUT of the experiment vault... doesn't belong here yet. Bryce or CockerPunk, lemme know if I am wrong to move this.

I would love to see you prove that you get (+/-) 1 fps. In fact, head over to the Paintball ASTM thread and download the Kuhnley-Gansner Standard Consistency Test (KGSCT) and do the testing. I think you will find that your marker will have a hard time beating (+/-) 4 fps tops.

Here is the BETA (KGSCT):
http://www.sicandbryce.com/paintball/Paint...ng+Document.xls

I will...

I am not lying when I say I have walked up to the chrono, taken 3 consecutive shots and not had the chrono readout change. Then someone else uses it (I thought it was broken honestly) and it varied every shot for them. Then I used it and it was dead on for another shot, then it varied 1 fps, then it went back to the original number. I kid you not... I really wish I had video proof of it. It was my second time ever using a phantom... I was pretty shocked. I have however seen it before maybe once a month or so, +-1 isn't TO hard.

That 289-291 fps.

[Spitlebug]

GrenadeMaster, on Apr 16 2009, 05:59 PM, said:

I will...

Good.

[The-Phantom]

Christopher, on Apr 12 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

I will also do a test with my Shocker. I have a feeling that we will see drastically different results once the CO2 is regulated. HPA had a pretty big advantage in this experiment.

an unregulated Co2 is indeed at a tremendous disadvantage and i do agree with you christopher, it's just the fact is most people who use Co2 don't regulate it properly or put an anti-siphon on it, so they use it as it was tested in this experiment. I respect you for supporting Co2 and i agree it "can" be as good as HPA but most people are too lazy to fix there tanks up for the best performance, i only use Co2 and have no problems with it... actually more consistant in phantoms then in HPA is, my bro and i saw this shooting side by side over 2 chronos at skirmish, the Co2 in the phantom was more consistant then the HPA

[GrenadeMaster]

I do think if phantoms were tuned for hpa you would get better results... but with the stock springs co2 is more consistent most likely.

A test shall be performed tomorrow.

[Lord Odin]

So is the problem with a secondary regulator needed to show that Co2 can be as stable as HPA or some sort of regulator setup on the tank itself? If it's the former, that can be easily tested with a Stabilizer.

[brycelarson]

GrenadeMaster, on Apr 16 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

I have however seen it before maybe once a month or so, +-1 isn't TO hard.

That 289-291 fps.

you're misunderstanding what we're saying. yes, +/- 1 fps can happen over a few shots - but not ALL shots. What we're trying to do is educate people that when you say +/- XXX you're claiming that your gun can do that forever. Instead you've using a very small sample and then trying to apply that to infinity - and that just doesn't work.

I'm going to stick to 20 shots as the minimum needed to really check the consistency of a setup.

[Christopher]

Lord Odin, on Apr 16 2009, 09:36 PM, said:

So is the problem with a secondary regulator needed to show that Co2 can be as stable as HPA or some sort of regulator setup on the tank itself? If it's the former, that can be easily tested with a Stabilizer.

I don't think there is a huge difference between on-tank regulators and inline regulators. From the preliminary regulator test, I think that it's somewhat safe to assume that the tank regulators don't have amazing consistency by themselves.

I think that a Stabilizer would be absolutely perfect to test the capability of CO2, but since not all regulators preform equally, the results won't be 100% accurate if you are looking to show that HPA is X% more consistent than CO2 or that CO2 is Y% more consistent than HPA. The differences between the gasses means that each has a certain procedure needed to achieve "optimal" preformance that will inevitably introduce variables.

So in other words, the fact that an CO2 setup with two Palmer's Stabilizers might beet out a Pure Energy tank regulator and a CP reg would not mean that CO2 is more consistant than HPA. IMO, it would prove that, for all intents and purposes, that CO2 can preform just as well as your average HPA setup.

[Lord Odin]

Christopher, on Apr 19 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

I don't think there is a huge difference between on-tank regulators and inline regulators. From the preliminary regulator test, I think that it's somewhat safe to assume that the tank regulators don't have amazing consistency by themselves.

I think that a Stabilizer would be absolutely perfect to test the capability of CO2, but since not all regulators preform equally, the results won't be 100% accurate if you are looking to show that HPA is X% more consistent than CO2 or that CO2 is Y% more consistent than HPA. The differences between the gasses means that each has a certain procedure needed to achieve "optimal" preformance that will inevitably introduce variables.

So in other words, the fact that an CO2 setup with two Palmer's Stabilizers might beet out a Pure Energy tank regulator and a CP reg would not mean that CO2 is more consistant than HPA. IMO, it would prove that, for all intents and purposes, that CO2 can preform just as well as your average HPA setup.

If we used just one single Stab and changed out the source from an HPA tank to a Co2, wouldn't that serve for practical purposes that one performs better than the other? Very few people will go beyond one inline regulator. I really wish I could find the pic of the PB gun w/ like 6 fake regs on it...

[Christopher]

Lord Odin, on Apr 23 2009, 10:34 PM, said:

If we used just one single Stab and changed out the source from an HPA tank to a Co2, wouldn't that serve for practical purposes that one performs better than the other? Very few people will go beyond one inline regulator. I really wish I could find the pic of the PB gun w/ like 6 fake regs on it...

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what your saying. If your suggesting that there should be just one Stabilizer on the gun, and switch between a CO2 tank and an HPA tank, I don't see the point. It's pretty obvious that the HPA would win out against the HPA, because the HPA is being regulated twice. It's not a matter of what "most people" would do. It's determining that the performance of CO2 VS HPA is strictly and almost entirely based on the regulators, not the gasses themselves.

Very few people underbore below .685, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work. In fact, it's quite the opposite; it works very well. Maybe if people knew that dual regulating CO2 was an effective alternative to HPA, more people would try it, as was the case with underboring. If you tried to convince someone that underboring was the way to go (before Punkworks), you'd be called a newb by nearly every single person on every paintball forum in existence. Thats quite nearly the exact same situation when it comes to CO2.

I'll use my airgun analogy again. In the world of airguns, CO2 is WORLDS more consistent than "HPA". The reason is that they use straight, unregulated HPA (3000PSI) rather than regulated HPA from a tank. CO2 experiences unimaginably better consistency, because it stays right around the 800 PSI mark, no matter how full the tank is. Using HPA, on the other hand, one can see differences in velocity as much as hundreds of feet per second until the pressure becomes too low to be considered "usable".

To me, the whole point is that it doesn't matter what gas you use. The one and only thing that matters is the consistency of the pressure of the gas. If you can get the pressure of CO2 to be just as consistent as the pressure of HPA, then I don't see why you wouldn't get the same consistency in velocity.

EDIT:

Sorry if that turned into a rant.




The World Infamous SuperUltraAutoElectroMegaHyperBlastemFlatter MKVXII (v.3.5.1)?

This post has been edited by Christopher: 23 April 2009 - 10:34 PM

[Lord Odin]

I see your point but I'm trying to think of a "real life" situation for a lot of people. Most people will be with either no inline regulators or just one. We already have data for no regulator but a stab would serve well with the "1 reg" situation. People could see how the gases compare in that situation.

If we went with more than 1 inline reg, the gun's usable pressure would have to be pretty low. Between each reg, the pressure difference needs to be large enough so that the reg can have an affect on the gas. Each reg added would affect the pressure being used but it would also be more prone to shootdown, wouldn't it? I think that's why we usually don't see more than 1 inline.

We could eventually do a test that would show the absolutes of each gas and they may be comparable but it also has to be in real-life terms.

As for the underbore example, most people were under the pretense of it causing barrel breaks and just avoided it like the plague. Data collected so far hasn't showed that. It still hasn't caught on because not many people have tried it. To tie this back to the Co2 vs HPA debate, I think people use HPA more because they haven't seen any data yet to show that they are comparable, or in fact, reversed in performance. What they have seen is people making the switch all the time and being happier with the results. Now, if we can show that Co2 is as stable as HPA, people would at least know what would be required to accomplish that equality. Then they can decide if it's worthwhile to go that route. Or they could try and come up with their own solutions about how to accomplish the same results with a simpler/cheaper/etc method.

That's the picture I was talking about! I crack up everytime I see it.

[Christopher]

Lord Odin, on Apr 23 2009, 11:55 PM, said:

I see your point but I'm trying to think of a "real life" situation for a lot of people. Most people will be with either no inline regulators or just one. We already have data for no regulator but a stab would serve well with the "1 reg" situation. People could see how the gases compare in that situation.

If we went with more than 1 inline reg, the gun's usable pressure would have to be pretty low. Between each reg, the pressure difference needs to be large enough so that the reg can have an affect on the gas. Each reg added would affect the pressure being used but it would also be more prone to shootdown, wouldn't it? I think that's why we usually don't see more than 1 inline.

That's the picture I was talking about! I crack up everytime I see it.

The reason that we dont' see more than one inline is simply because any more regulators than 2 is overkill. If you had two inline regulators while using HPA, you would effectivley be triple regulating, would have nearly no effect on consistancy.

Unless I am mistaken, you only need 200 PSI in between regulators to completely avoid shootdown. So the initial tank pressure would be 800, and lets say that it gets regulated by the first regulator down to 600 by the first regulator. Now, the second regulator can take that pressure and regulate it down to anywhere from 400-100 PSI. That's a pretty wide range of operating pressures. And seeing as plenty of people use dual Stabilizers on high pressure PPS guns, I really doubt that shootdown is going to be an issue anyway.

I do see your point. A test with 1 regulator is more "usefull" data that will apply to more people. And I have no doubt that the results would clearly show that HPA will win out in that situation. I don't think that anyone would deny that dual regulated HPA > single or unregulated CO2. Just as dual regulated CO2 would very likley beat out single regulated HPA, as hinted by the preliminary regulator test.

[Lord Odin]

Is there a reason why Co2 tanks don't use a regulator like HPA? I know it starts out as a liquid and turns to gas but why not include some way to start the expansion before the it exits the bottle at a more controlled rate?

[Leftystrikesback]

Lord Odin, on Apr 23 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

Is there a reason why Co2 tanks don't use a regulator like HPA? I know it starts out as a liquid and turns to gas but why not include some way to start the expansion before the it exits the bottle at a more controlled rate?

The reaction of liquid CO2 turning into gas is temperature and pressure controlled, at ambient temperature it condenses at approximately 800 psi. You could use big ass heat sinks to keep the temperature more constant

[Christopher]

Lord Odin, on Apr 24 2009, 12:27 AM, said:

Is there a reason why Co2 tanks don't use a regulator like HPA? I know it starts out as a liquid and turns to gas but why not include some way to start the expansion before the it exits the bottle at a more controlled rate?

It's actually quite simple. Regulators don't promote expansion, at least not any significant amount. The only time you even need to let CO2 expand is if you are using a non anti siphon tank. In that case, the best regulator in the world isn't going to do you much good, because you can't regulate liquid, since it is not compressible. And if liquid gets past the regulator, you've essentially done nothing.

The other problem is that there is not enough demand to facilitate such a thing. None of the fill stations for CO2 would work with any kind of HPA-like regulator, unless it was an oddball design that allowed for gas to flow both ways through the regulator. So you would need some type of fill station adapter as well.

Speaking of which, there was one adapter that was made by Smart Parts that allowed you to fill an HPA Maxflo regulator with CO2. I believe this was called the "dual fuel" system. Since the Maxflo was balanced regulator (almost nonexistant in paintball), the input pressure did not effect the output pressure's consistancy. Therefore, you couldn't really tell the difference between HPA or CO2 (consistancy wise), and you could actually fill one tank with both gasses at the same time.

Trying to control the liquid after it's already outside of the bottle is generally not a great idea, although it could be done. It's much easier to just stop the liquid at the valve with an anti-siphon.

[brycelarson]

I do agree with Christopher - CO2 can be set up to be very consistent - possibly just as consistent as HPA. One of the major reasons that HPA caught on was the ease of use. Walk up, attach, fill, walk away. No scale, no training and the field can make more fills all day instead of hauling in tanks.

I would love to see the test between CO2 + stab vs just the reg on an HPA tank.

[azreal]

For the Stab+C02 test you would have to compare it to an adjustable tank. Which would you choose? I predict something like the old maxflos would win, where a dynaflow would give you such wild results it wouldn't be valid.

In my experience, and in no way scientifically valid. CO2 can be as "consistent" in ideal conditions. Whereas HPA is almost always "consistent" even in less than ideal situations.

This post has been edited by azreal: 24 April 2009 - 11:34 AM

[Maj Tom]

brycelarson, on Apr 24 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

I would love to see the test between CO2 + stab vs just the reg on an HPA tank.

Just got a 3600psi pump, 8 20 oz's filled and a shooting chrony I'll see what comes of it . But first need to find my SD cards so I capture more than 30 sec of video.

Hopefully I'll get:

A5 (Stock)
98C (Stock )
A5 maxed out
M98 Maxed out
Nova Series
Mayehm/Assault 80 (if my Feedneck gets done)

And for non oddball/"low End" would actually be saying something "HPA only" stock G3.

Now I wish I had something smaller than a 92ci 4500. Well off to the bike pump I go.

[brycelarson]

Maj Tom, on Apr 24 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

Now I wish I had something smaller than a 92ci 4500. Well off to the bike pump I go.

your arms are going to be HUGE!

so you're going to do single regged HPA tank v single regged CO2 with stab - right?

cool.

[Maj Tom]

brycelarson, on Apr 24 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

Maj Tom, on Apr 24 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

Now I wish I had something smaller than a 92ci 4500. Well off to the bike pump I go.

your arms are going to be HUGE!

so you're going to do single regged HPA tank v single regged CO2 with stab - right?

cool.

Single regg'd HPA vs single stab CO2 on:

98
A5
Pro Carb if I can find all the parts (another "project" that was tossed into a box)
Blazer

Everything else needs/has a lpr

probably have a sample ~70 balls each (~20 regular semi, then get going a bit quicker to see any difference in drop off until maybe 15bps)

As for the tank pumping just hit 2.5k on one tank. Time for another break, they don't seem to mention the 30lbs of force needed to left the handle to fill the chamber. I'll to the other 400 reps to top off the tank (atleast to ~3.7k) tomorrow then start the other tank. Weather permitting should be able to do the test Thursday.

This post has been edited by Maj Tom: 24 April 2009 - 06:16 PM

[Leftystrikesback]

I was just re-reading this thread and wondered if GrenadeMaster ever did the test on his phantom as he promised? I would be impressed if he got +/- 1 as he claimed, as I was only able to get +/- 7 from my phantom using the best paint I could get my hands on. with HPA I got +/- 16

Here are the results from my own test:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rnA...amp;output=html

CO2 was far more consistent

This post has been edited by Leftystrikesback: 02 June 2009 - 01:06 AM