Jump to content


Photo

barrel test part 2


  • Please log in to reply
124 replies to this topic

#51 cabeza the huevo

cabeza the huevo

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 10:49 PM

even if the difference is very very small very tiny,, i think a lot of people whant to see a winner,, even if it's small

#52 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,110 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 04 January 2009 - 10:59 PM

lets be fair here though, all the barrels tested were considered as high quality barrels.

we didn't test any poor quality barrels.

i dont think is fair to say the barrel makes no difference.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#53 cabeza the huevo

cabeza the huevo

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 04 January 2009 - 11:53 PM

lets be fair here though, all the barrels tested were considered as high quality barrels.

we didn't test any poor quality barrels.

i dont think is fair to say the barrel makes no difference.



sssooooo !!!! LOL keep going,,, pick a winner !!!!!!!!!

#54 Lord Odin

Lord Odin

    3 may keep a secret if 2 of them are dead

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oak Lawn, IL


Posted 05 January 2009 - 12:43 AM

A winner should only be picked if it stands out clear as day. You don't pick one just to pick one. This about finding the truth; not a popularity contest.

#55 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 05 January 2009 - 02:50 AM

even if the difference is very very small very tiny,, i think a lot of people whant to see a winner,, even if it's small


The difference is very small, and if you picked a"best barrel" based on what we've got here there is no guarantee that you picked the right one. as you can plainly see in the first post, the barrel with the smallest accuracy vector (so the most accurate) is the .689 12" 1 piece. But it's damn close to the 3 barrels right below it, and we are using a small enough sample size that only one or two shots that went a little crazy (due to who knows what factors, it may not be the barrel) would change the rankings. In other words, there is not a statistically significant "winner."

The test was not intended to find a "winner". The test was to see if there were any trends in barrel construction that lead to better accuracy. Trends such as bore size, barrel length, 1pc vs. 2 pc. etc. It doesn't look like there are any trends, at least none exceedingly apparent. Which in and of itself is extremely useful, as other people have mentioned.

Hope that clears things up for some people.

Edited by Leftystrikesback, 05 January 2009 - 02:52 AM.

<img src="http://img.photobuck...tball/Sig4.jpg" border="0" class="linked-sig-image" />
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->"do the math, save the world"<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->

#56 Troy

Troy

    What... is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma City

Posted 05 January 2009 - 10:08 AM

The test was not intended to find a "winner". The test was to see if there were any trends in barrel construction that lead to better accuracy. Trends such as bore size, barrel length, 1pc vs. 2 pc. etc. It doesn't look like there are any trends, at least none exceedingly apparent. Which in and of itself is extremely useful, as other people have mentioned.

Hope that clears things up for some people.


Right now, with the data that we have, it appears that there aren't any trends that tell us what exactly is going on. We could go the route of doing crazy oversimplifications like the "group comparison" graph at the end, but as I pointed out earlier, there is a lot of apples being compared to oranges there.

I'm starting to lean towards Lord Odin's point of view that the interaction of differently shaped paintballs and different bore sizes may account for the inconsistent results we are seeing. How we can apply that to real life, however, is a good question.
\m/

#57 airlesscoma

airlesscoma

    Custom member title

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Modesto CA

Posted 05 January 2009 - 05:58 PM

from everything ive read my opinion is that you should get a barrel that is super purty!!!!! lol but seriously there needs to be more data for there to be a best barrel.

Dp G3 with Dye Rotor Xbox live gamertag: airlesscoma
Earn free gear by searching with http://toddsgearbag....-...r&rb=311401

#58 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 05 January 2009 - 06:02 PM

Right now, with the data that we have, it appears that there aren't any trends that tell us what exactly is going on. We could go the route of doing crazy oversimplifications like the "group comparison" graph at the end, but as I pointed out earlier, there is a lot of apples being compared to oranges there.

I'm starting to lean towards Lord Odin's point of view that the interaction of differently shaped paintballs and different bore sizes may account for the inconsistent results we are seeing. How we can apply that to real life, however, is a good question.


two things - 1. the reason for the drastic oversimplification of the groups was to prove that apples and oranges actually can be compared - since they all produced the same "juice" in this case. There really wasn't a statictically significant difference from group to group. We were spotting a 1" resolution from 50 feet. The best to worst groups were just about an inch apart - meaning there wasn't any difference.

2. the results are actaully surprising to me in how consistant they actually are. again - EVERY BARREL we tested fell inside what I would consider to be our margin of error on the test. That's pretty amazingly consistant. That's about 1000 shots through more than 20 barrles - and none stuck out as better or worse. That's about as consistant as you get.

Our other tests have shows signifiant change in efficiecy and consistency - but accuracy was really pretty much a moot point.

#59 cabeza the huevo

cabeza the huevo

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 05 January 2009 - 06:25 PM

ddaammm i really wanted a winner,, but then after all , i guess this means we don't have to worry about acurracy when picking a barrel, i guess we should look for weight, and cost, and how sick it looks and feel...... hey this might be a stupid question, but is there anny chance that carbon barrels are more acurate just because they are made out of another material?? i mean because i shoot a sly barrel, and it looks diferente on the inside, not so smooth and shiny... could this be a factor that makes carbon fiber barrels a bit better ?? worse ?? becasue in my opinion, the sly barrel makes my geo even more acurate than the original barrel, even when this doesn't mean anything, since my point of view might not be a good source (sly fan ever since they exist),, y think carbon fiber barrels might be worth testing, perhaps later or something,,,, thanks guys !!!!! really nice job, seriously you whent beyond what i was especting with this...

#60 woodwose

woodwose

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 07 January 2009 - 11:36 PM

So I wonder if you would mind saying something about the 50 foot distance. I am imagining that there is probably a distance that best measures barrels, rather than paint. And maybe the further the taret, the more you are seeing the effects of paint and less that of barrel. But maybe not. Thoughts?

w0se

#61 Lord Odin

Lord Odin

    3 may keep a secret if 2 of them are dead

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oak Lawn, IL


Posted 08 January 2009 - 12:15 AM

No, of course we can't measure the balls before games. If ball roundness and size is tied to accuracy, what it can do is scientifically put the majority of the responsibility on the paintball manufacturer. That added pressure along with more demand from the public might influence them to increase their manufacturing standards.

The biggest advantage to doing a test like that is ruling out variables. Why not start with the thing that we're using to test?


The Manufacturers already make good paint, it is just more costly. Most players cant afford to buy Marbs or Evil or whatever everytime they go out. Unless there is a better process of manufacturing paintballs.

That's what I was thinking. I keep watching the episode of "How It's Made" with paintballs being made and I see them getting dropped right after unison and then banged around to dry them out. I just can't help but shake the idea that perhaps that's why they don't come out perfectly round. Even if you ignore the seam, the rest of the ball should have a round shape. We just don't see that all the time. There has to be a better way to produce them.

Who knows, if better balls result in less shots required to be shot, people might think they are worth a few bucks extra. Only time can tell on something like that.

#62 Iram

Iram

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Acton, MA

Posted 08 January 2009 - 06:52 AM

ddaammm i really wanted a winner,, but then after all , i guess this means we don't have to worry about acurracy when picking a barrel, i guess we should look for weight, and cost, and how sick it looks and feel...... hey this might be a stupid question, but is there anny chance that carbon barrels are more acurate just because they are made out of another material?? i mean because i shoot a sly barrel, and it looks diferente on the inside, not so smooth and shiny... could this be a factor that makes carbon fiber barrels a bit better ?? worse ?? becasue in my opinion, the sly barrel makes my geo even more acurate than the original barrel, even when this doesn't mean anything, since my point of view might not be a good source (sly fan ever since they exist),, y think carbon fiber barrels might be worth testing, perhaps later or something,,,, thanks guys !!!!! really nice job, seriously you whent beyond what i was especting with this...


The carbon firber barrels only have something like a 2" aluminum back and then balloon out to an insanely large bore size. I'm not sure about the sly barrels, but I know that the stiffi's have a 2" aluminum sizer and then a 0.695" carbon fiber front. From the tests, it doesn't look like the length of a barrel has anything to do with the accuracy, but the boresize has a lot to do with efficiency. I'd expect that 2" back to lead to lousy efficiency, but that would be about it. The paintball probably isn't going to touch the front much, and it's not going to do much (a little, but not a lot) to help you get to velocity since gas will be escaping around the ball.

Next time you're at the field, can you try chronographing with your normal carbon fiber barrel, and then switching to the stock barrel and see if you see a velocity jump?

#63 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 08 January 2009 - 12:03 PM

The carbon firber barrels only have something like a 2" aluminum back and then balloon out to an insanely large bore size. I'm not sure about the sly barrels, but I know that the stiffi's have a 2" aluminum sizer and then a 0.695" carbon fiber front.

Next time you're at the field, can you try chronographing with your normal carbon fiber barrel, and then switching to the stock barrel and see if you see a velocity jump?


I'm guessing that the CF front is WAY bigger than .695 - all of the two piece kits we've measured have been .700+ on the fronts.

and we did shoot CP's CCM carbon fiber kit - which has the aprox 1.5-2" back then big front. They were terrible on efficiency. We were shooting just the freak backs to see how much slower they were - we could get them up to the 280-ish fps we were looking for. The sniper we were using couldn't get the CCM back above about 160 fps before we had the velocity up so far it was leaking out the valve.

#64 RickT

RickT

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 09 January 2009 - 12:00 PM

i've read through this forum and if i read it correctly
all the barrel are pretty equal and that there's no better or worse barrel between 1 piece and 2 piece, underbore or overbore?

#65 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 09 January 2009 - 12:57 PM

i've read through this forum and if i read it correctly
all the barrel are pretty equal and that there's no better or worse barrel between 1 piece and 2 piece, underbore or overbore?


assuming equal barrel quality then there wasn't any measurable difference in accuracy. As for efficiency and consistancy - there is a huge difference. We tested only high quality barrels as well - we make no claims that ALL barrels perform equally on accuracy tests.

#66 Lord Odin

Lord Odin

    3 may keep a secret if 2 of them are dead

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oak Lawn, IL


Posted 09 January 2009 - 05:03 PM

CP, Bryce - did you guys record the X and Y vectors separately? I'm curious if you could only look at the Y data and see if it correlates to barrel consistency. I would think that in a perfect setup, they would be directly related. If its still hidden, then something must be hiding the true data by throwing off the accuracy other than the barrel.

#67 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 09 January 2009 - 06:32 PM

CP, Bryce - did you guys record the X and Y vectors separately? I'm curious if you could only look at the Y data and see if it correlates to barrel consistency. I would think that in a perfect setup, they would be directly related. If its still hidden, then something must be hiding the true data by throwing off the accuracy other than the barrel.


yeah, look at the data sheet - there's an x and a y column. I just made the vector calculation for comparison.

good call - I did not check that. let me whip something up.

data

look at the far right tab.

Edited by brycelarson, 09 January 2009 - 06:46 PM.


#68 Iram

Iram

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Acton, MA

Posted 09 January 2009 - 06:47 PM

Posted Image

I just added the standard deviation of the y values (as calculated by Excel) and added it to the graph.

Based on that, the only thing I would conclude is don't shot a 0.683/xxx. Was that a 0.683 two-piece back with no front on it?

EDIT: Nevermind, just looked at bryces nice neat graphs. That says something else nice for underboring I believe.

Edited by Iram, 09 January 2009 - 06:51 PM.


#69 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 09 January 2009 - 06:48 PM

yeah, that is a better format to look at it - it appears there's some relationship - and there should be.

#70 RickT

RickT

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 10 January 2009 - 02:30 AM

For efficiency and consistency which barrel's. i dont really understand the data dont remember much about SD and Vector been too long since i did math.

#71 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 10 January 2009 - 08:37 AM

For efficiency and consistency which barrel's. i dont really understand the data dont remember much about SD and Vector been too long since i did math.



if you're asking which are best for consistency and efficiency - we have two different answers.

from this last test the efficiency goes up with underbore, one piece and mid-length. too short and it slows down, too long and same thing. The smaller the bore the more efficient - and the one-piece constant ID barrels are more efficient than the two piece barrels.

as for consistency - previous testing has shown underbore and overbore both are better than blow-test matching - previous test indicated that underbore was the most consistent - this most recent test was a little more mixed. in general the smaller bore barrels were better - but some mid-sized barrels did very well too. See the tab labeled "consistency comparisons" in the data spreadsheet - it ranks the top 10 most consistent and top 10 most accurate barrels in our test.

keep in mind - in this test the whole field was very close. All barrels compared were high quality barrels.

#72 Lord Odin

Lord Odin

    3 may keep a secret if 2 of them are dead

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oak Lawn, IL


Posted 10 January 2009 - 09:42 AM

yeah, that is a better format to look at it - it appears there's some relationship - and there should be.

I'm just not seeing a direct relationship in your graph, Bryce. If the FPS SD shows a trend line, then the Y vector SD should be similar but it isn't. I don't think it means the relationship isn't there but it's just not apparent.

Edited by Lord Odin, 10 January 2009 - 09:42 AM.


#73 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,110 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 10 January 2009 - 12:57 PM

yeah, that is a better format to look at it - it appears there's some relationship - and there should be.

I'm just not seeing a direct relationship in your graph, Bryce. If the FPS SD shows a trend line, then the Y vector SD should be similar but it isn't. I don't think it means the relationship isn't there but it's just not apparent.


me either. im not seeing it.

i think that idea that velocity will lead to a better Y spread is over simplifying it. we are shooting spheres, or almost spheres, so they can roll and spin and with the LP pockets shedding off the back randomly, that would tend to kill any notion that there is a direct correlation. maybe if we were shooting gliders, or something with purposefully designed asymmetric aerodynamics, but paintballs are probably not gonna yield those results.

but a more consistent velocity i could see leading to better accuracy overall. the question is, at what point is your gun shooting more consistently then the paintballs themselves will fly, and i think we got our answer for that in this test too - for 50 feet at least.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#74 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 10 January 2009 - 04:42 PM

I'm looking at Iram's graph - and the lengths certainly seem to have some corolation.

Iram - can you sort from lowest to highest? - choose either vector or SD and re-graph?

#75 Iram

Iram

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Acton, MA

Posted 10 January 2009 - 06:40 PM

I'm working on it now...

#76 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 10 January 2009 - 06:47 PM

also, I didn't look close enough at your graph - to make it meaningful you need to compare the SD (fps) and the SD (Y). That will tell us if consistency on velocity translates to vertical accuracy.

You are currently comparing sqroot(x^2+y^2) to y. there's going to be correlation - because y is in both numbers.

#77 Iram

Iram

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Acton, MA

Posted 10 January 2009 - 06:48 PM

Posted Image

Edited by Iram, 10 January 2009 - 06:50 PM.


#78 Iram

Iram

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Acton, MA

Posted 10 January 2009 - 07:01 PM

I broke that down for some easier partial comparisons. Yes, I know I put duplicate data points in a couple graphs, it wasn't deliberate.

Well, there may be a few trends. If you look at the "All Barrels", the one piece barrels are better than the two piece barrels with the exception of the 0.685 12" One-piece. So, it may be reasonable to conclude that one piece barrels are more accurate for consistancy on the y axis.

The Two piece, 0.683" barrels look like longer tips are more accuracte, but if you drop off the Two piece "0.683/xxx", that trend goes away and they are all in the 2-3" range.

With the two piece, 12", initially it looks like paint to barrel match is important, but if you look at the data as a whole, it would almost seem like you get the same accuracy if you match the paint, if you extremely underbore, or if you extremely overbore. Plus, all of the numbers are in a very tight 2-3" range again.

The one piece barrels only have two or three data points, so I'm not sure how much I trust any assumptions based on those graphs. If we had more values or a straight line that would be different, but we don't really.

#79 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 10 January 2009 - 07:07 PM

I put the pertinent info on one graph - and the answer is no, there is no correlation between SD Y and SD fps. we're within acceptable +/- fps for the paint we were using.

Posted Image

#80 Poe

Poe

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 10 January 2009 - 11:35 PM

I put the pertinent info on one graph - and the answer is no, there is no correlation between SD Y and SD fps. we're within acceptable +/- fps for the paint we were using.


So minor velocity fluctuations appears to have negligible effects on Y axis?

#81 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 10 January 2009 - 11:38 PM

So minor velocity fluctuations appears to have negligible effects on Y axis?


more than that - doubling the variation in fps seems to have NO effect on the distribution of the balls on the Y axis. That Y-axis plot is about as level as a data set is going to be - I sorted by fps SD - and you can see that go from just about 4 to somewhere near 9 while the Y SD just stays level.

#82 Poe

Poe

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 11 January 2009 - 12:10 AM

So minor velocity fluctuations appears to have negligible effects on Y axis?


more than that - doubling the variation in fps seems to have NO effect on the distribution of the balls on the Y axis. That Y-axis plot is about as level as a data set is going to be - I sorted by fps SD - and you can see that go from just about 4 to somewhere near 9 while the Y SD just stays level.


So as a trait, good velocity consistency might only useful for decreasing ball bounce chances?

#83 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 11 January 2009 - 12:17 AM

So as a trait, good velocity consistency might only useful for decreasing ball bounce chances?


maybe... the way I look at it is this: I want to be playing as close to the field limit as possible. If my gun is shooting more consistently I can chrono higher without worrying about shooting hot. If I can get an extra 10-15 fps over other people then I've got an advantage.

As to bounces - what do you mean exactly?

#84 Poe

Poe

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 11 January 2009 - 01:08 AM

So as a trait, good velocity consistency might only useful for decreasing ball bounce chances?


maybe... the way I look at it is this: I want to be playing as close to the field limit as possible. If my gun is shooting more consistently I can chrono higher without worrying about shooting hot. If I can get an extra 10-15 fps over other people then I've got an advantage.

As to bounces - what do you mean exactly?


Increased velocity should increase the chances the ball will break and not bounce.

I suppose the extra FPS could also give a couple more feet of range.

#85 Iram

Iram

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Acton, MA

Posted 11 January 2009 - 06:55 AM

I put the pertinent info on one graph - and the answer is no, there is no correlation between SD Y and SD fps. we're within acceptable +/- fps for the paint we were using.


So minor velocity fluctuations appears to have negligible effects on Y axis?


Based on Bryce's chart, yep.

#86 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 11 January 2009 - 11:00 AM

So minor velocity fluctuations appears to have negligible effects on Y axis?


and in this case by minor we mean that about 95% of your shots will be withing +/- 15 fps.

#87 o-baller

o-baller

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Louisville Kentucky

Posted 11 January 2009 - 12:38 PM

Which brings me to a question. Can CO2 affect accuracy? As apposed to HPA.
Sqaush the Bug and Whip the Hips- Coach Watkins

98% of statistics in peoples sigs are made up

#88 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 11 January 2009 - 01:02 PM

Which brings me to a question. Can CO2 affect accuracy? As apposed to HPA.


The gas used has nothing to do with velocity, accuracy or anything else - if the gun shoots the same fps and just as consistently - then it wouldn't matter if it's spring powered, using CO2, Nitrogen, HPA or farts.

The trick with CO2 is that it's more likely to change pressure with temperature - AND that in your tank it's a liquid - so you're dealing with a state change to use it. Set up properly there's no reason it can't perform just as well as Air in most conditions.

#89 Iram

Iram

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Acton, MA

Posted 11 January 2009 - 02:26 PM

Which brings me to a question. Can CO2 affect accuracy? As apposed to HPA.


The gas used has nothing to do with velocity, accuracy or anything else - if the gun shoots the same fps and just as consistently - then it wouldn't matter if it's spring powered, using CO2, Nitrogen, HPA or farts.

The trick with CO2 is that it's more likely to change pressure with temperature - AND that in your tank it's a liquid - so you're dealing with a state change to use it. Set up properly there's no reason it can't perform just as well as Air in most conditions.


lol

As long as it's not a an indoor field with bad ventilation...

#90 Poe

Poe

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted 11 January 2009 - 09:55 PM

I would have been shooting hot today. :)

#91 T-MAC

T-MAC

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 23 posts

Posted 12 January 2009 - 02:44 PM

are you guys going to be making a video explaining results. Im generally not a moron, but to me the charts might as well be in arabic. Thanks and good work

#92 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,110 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 12 January 2009 - 03:36 PM

are you guys going to be making a video explaining results. Im generally not a moron, but to me the charts might as well be in arabic. Thanks and good work


uploading part 1 of my conclusions now. it will be on my personal channel.
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#93 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 12 January 2009 - 08:53 PM

are you guys going to be making a video explaining results. Im generally not a moron, but to me the charts might as well be in arabic. Thanks and good work


uploading part 1 of my conclusions now. it will be on my personal channel.


where is it man? don't see the vid yet.

#94 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,110 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 12 January 2009 - 08:54 PM

are you guys going to be making a video explaining results. Im generally not a moron, but to me the charts might as well be in arabic. Thanks and good work


uploading part 1 of my conclusions now. it will be on my personal channel.


where is it man? don't see the vid yet.


should be up soon, been uploading for ever ... youtube ... gah


right here -

Edited by cockerpunk, 12 January 2009 - 11:14 PM.

The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#95 rntlee

rntlee

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 402 posts

Posted 13 January 2009 - 12:47 PM

The gas used has nothing to do with velocity, accuracy or anything else - if the gun shoots the same fps and just as consistently - then it wouldn't matter if it's spring powered, using CO2, Nitrogen, HPA or farts.


Beg to differ as the molecular weight of the gas is a variable in determining potential energy. From another site:

the energy, expressed in liter-atm, that could be released in an adiabatic expansion (i.e., explosion) of an ideal gas equals

[p1V/(γ-1)] [1-(p2/p1)(γ-1)/γ]


where

p1 is the test pressure, atm
p2=1, atmospheric pressure
V =volume of vessel, L
γ = 1.4 for nitrogen


the individual gas constant varies considerably.

Edited by rntlee, 13 January 2009 - 01:19 PM.


#96 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 13 January 2009 - 01:40 PM

Beg to differ as the molecular weight of the gas is a variable in determining potential energy. From another site:

the energy, expressed in liter-atm, that could be released in an adiabatic expansion (i.e., explosion) of an ideal gas equals

the individual gas constant varies considerably.


sure, but does the potential expansive energy matter on the scale we're using? And, even if it did would that change how the paintball flies? As long as the gas can consistently get the ball to the desired speed by the end of the barrel - then I don't see why the choice of gas would matter as far as accuracy goes. The original question was :

"Can CO2 affect accuracy? As apposed to HPA."

Edited by brycelarson, 13 January 2009 - 01:45 PM.


#97 Lord Odin

Lord Odin

    3 may keep a secret if 2 of them are dead

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oak Lawn, IL


Posted 13 January 2009 - 05:21 PM

Beg to differ as the molecular weight of the gas is a variable in determining potential energy. From another site:

the energy, expressed in liter-atm, that could be released in an adiabatic expansion (i.e., explosion) of an ideal gas equals

the individual gas constant varies considerably.


sure, but does the potential expansive energy matter on the scale we're using? And, even if it did would that change how the paintball flies? As long as the gas can consistently get the ball to the desired speed by the end of the barrel - then I don't see why the choice of gas would matter as far as accuracy goes. The original question was :

"Can CO2 affect accuracy? As apposed to HPA."

I think that's just the kicker. Are we talking theoretical shooting like we do in tests where we have plenty of time to shoot one ball at a time or are we talking more in-game style shooting where people are going to be shooting at higher ROF? If its the former, then no, it would not affect accuracy and would be the same. If its the latter, then yes, because the higher ROF would cool things down quite a lot and your velocity would decrease, which would affect your accuracy. So it really depends on the context of the question.

#98 Snipez4664

Snipez4664

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 January 2009 - 05:38 PM

The gas used has nothing to do with velocity, accuracy or anything else - if the gun shoots the same fps and just as consistently - then it wouldn't matter if it's spring powered, using CO2, Nitrogen, HPA or farts.


Beg to differ as the molecular weight of the gas is a variable in determining potential energy. From another site:

the energy, expressed in liter-atm, that could be released in an adiabatic expansion (i.e., explosion) of an ideal gas equals

[p1V/(γ-1)] [1-(p2/p1)(γ-1)/γ]


where

p1 is the test pressure, atm
p2=1, atmospheric pressure
V =volume of vessel, L
γ = 1.4 for nitrogen


the individual gas constant varies considerably.



First of all, you never define gamma - its the ratio of the specific heat at constant pressure, Cp, to the specific heat at constant volume.

The gamma value for CO2 is 1.3, compared to air at 1.4 (note that just about any diatomic gas can have this value derived from kinetic gas theory - this is a typical PChem homework assignment. 1.4 is derived right from 7R/5R - the R cancels. You may argue that this is considerable variance, but it is less than 10 percent.

Secondly, gas flows in guns aren't adiabatic - there ARE heat flows involved. Your gun wouldn't cool down and your tippmann C3 could be semiauto if we could simplify the assumption to adiabatic.

Thirdly, while you're strictly correct that the stp volume of gas used at a given velocity is probably going to be different per gas, SLIGHTLY, bryce already stated that it doesn't matter for a given velocity. So unless your contention is that molecular momentum somehow produces Brownian motion on the paintball (or changes the ejection property via different Reynolds number at the muzzle), he is still correct.

Edited by Snipez4664, 13 January 2009 - 07:24 PM.

Posted Image

This post brought to you by: Lurker
Owner/Operator/Lead Engineer - Lurker Paintball
Check out our products at Lurker Paintball

#99 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,110 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 13 January 2009 - 07:55 PM

The gas used has nothing to do with velocity, accuracy or anything else - if the gun shoots the same fps and just as consistently - then it wouldn't matter if it's spring powered, using CO2, Nitrogen, HPA or farts.


Beg to differ as the molecular weight of the gas is a variable in determining potential energy. From another site:

the energy, expressed in liter-atm, that could be released in an adiabatic expansion (i.e., explosion) of an ideal gas equals

[p1V/(γ-1)] [1-(p2/p1)(γ-1)/γ]


where

p1 is the test pressure, atm
p2=1, atmospheric pressure
V =volume of vessel, L
γ = 1.4 for nitrogen


the individual gas constant varies considerably.



First of all, you never define gamma - its the ratio of the specific heat at constant pressure, Cp, to the specific heat at constant volume.

The gamma value for CO2 is 1.3, compared to air at 1.4 (note that just about any diatomic gas can have this value derived from kinetic gas theory - this is a typical PChem homework assignment. 1.4 is derived right from 7R/5R - the R cancels. You may argue that this is considerable variance, but it is less than 10 percent.

Secondly, gas flows in guns aren't adiabatic - there ARE heat flows involved. Your gun wouldn't cool down and your tippmann C3 could be semiauto if we could simplify the assumption to adiabatic.

Thirdly, while you're strictly correct that the stp volume of gas used at a given velocity is probably going to be different per gas, SLIGHTLY, bryce already stated that it doesn't matter for a given velocity. So unless your contention is that molecular momentum somehow produces Brownian motion on the paintball (or changes the ejection property via different Reynolds number at the muzzle), he is still correct.


thanks for reminding me why im not a chemical engineer ...

lol

actually thats alot more thermo then chemistry, but whatever!
The ultimate truth in paintball is that the interaction between the gun and the player is far and away the largest factor in accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

And yes, Gordon is the sexiest manifestation of "to the front."


#100 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,588 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 13 January 2009 - 08:25 PM

First of all, you never define gamma - its the ratio of the specific heat at constant pressure, Cp, to the specific heat at constant volume.

The gamma value for CO2 is 1.3, compared to air at 1.4 (note that just about any diatomic gas can have this value derived from kinetic gas theory - this is a typical PChem homework assignment. 1.4 is derived right from 7R/5R - the R cancels. You may argue that this is considerable variance, but it is less than 10 percent.

Secondly, gas flows in guns aren't adiabatic - there ARE heat flows involved. Your gun wouldn't cool down and your tippmann C3 could be semiauto if we could simplify the assumption to adiabatic.

Thirdly, while you're strictly correct that the stp volume of gas used at a given velocity is probably going to be different per gas, SLIGHTLY, bryce already stated that it doesn't matter for a given velocity. So unless your contention is that molecular momentum somehow produces Brownian motion on the paintball (or changes the ejection property via different Reynolds number at the muzzle), he is still correct.


see I don't even have to do math - just find a logical reason that someone else's math doesn't matter :)

but yeah, I'm starting from the assumption that whatever gas you choose to use on your gun - you've then made the adjustments necessary to get your gun operating well using that gas. Dual stabs from palmers on CO2 and I've seen some really impressive results.

Of course, CO2 and HPA have different applications - there's a reason that you don't see CO2 in high ROF applications - however, I've seen some seriously frosted over guns and players just fine with the performance in scenario / woods play.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users