Jump to content


Photo

G6R LSET efficiency testing - Std Vs SLP


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#51 Spider200081

Spider200081

    Member-608 Spartans Dubuque, IA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,892 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dubuque, IA

Posted 26 January 2011 - 12:20 AM

The SLP does work fine for dm's and ego's right? Just curious since I might be interested in getting a g6r and needing a new tank now would possibly get a slp aslong as it works fine with ego and dm markers. Well basically any 2 reg marker.

#52 MIBaller

MIBaller

    Gun Tech Guru

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,590 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grand Ledge, MI

Posted 26 January 2011 - 01:10 PM

[quote name='MIBaller' date='25 January 2011 - 09:00 PM' timestamp='1296007213' post='1974032']
Can some one please explain to my why the SLP makes such a difference on the G6R to me it doesnt make much sence as the air from the tank goes through an HPR to lower the pressure maybe some one who is smarter than I am can explain exactly why?
[/quote]

Posted Image
Just out of curiosity how much does the tank's output pressure fluctuate?
[/quote]

Here's My point a Normal HP tank puts out around 850. The SLP puts out 275? That air has to go through an HPR first. So the output shouldnt effect much but consistency because the more you have to drop a pressure the more inconsisten you will be basically

850 to 150 will be less consisten than 275 to 150. So my thinking is there is a vent in the gun like the Autococker SR's and maybe HP cause the gun to vent more air but idk.
My Feedback http://www.techpb.co...howtopic=108194
HAVE AN OLD GUN AND THE BOARD IS FRIED GIVE ME A PM.
Posted Image

#53 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 26 January 2011 - 01:54 PM

Mass
This test assumes the same brand of paint will be the same mass and diameter every time.

Consistency
These tests make a less consistent marker appear to be a less efficient marker. Why? Because a positive swing of Xfps expends proportionally more energy then a negative swing of Xfps saves.


no, the test doesn't assume the same diameter - that's why it's got a field to enter the diameter of the paint used in a test.

good point on the consistency. So yes, the consistency of the gun will effect this test to some degree.

Consistency could be +/- 0 FPS and the mass could still vary the results by 15%. i.e. a 1740 shot marker could result in a 2000 shot marker just due to using a different mass paintball.



the formula is .5M*V^2 - to to get the %15 change in energy you would need a 30% change in mass. I'm hoping that people aren't using paint that varies by 30% ball to ball on this test. :)

#54 ninjapaintball

ninjapaintball

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crystal Lake, IL

Posted 26 January 2011 - 05:44 PM

The SLP does work fine for dm's and ego's right? Just curious since I might be interested in getting a g6r and needing a new tank now would possibly get a slp aslong as it works fine with ego and dm markers. Well basically any 2 reg marker.


have not heard about the dms but we think no. we have shoot it on an ego and it was OK but would stick to the g6r and the victorys.
NINJA PAINTBALL - PROUDLY MADE IN THE USA
Ninja Paintball Factory Tech
If you have a question please post it in the NINJA/PSI GURU forum
DOT Certified Hydro Tester G777

#55 MIBaller

MIBaller

    Gun Tech Guru

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,590 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grand Ledge, MI

Posted 26 January 2011 - 06:50 PM


...

Here's My point a Normal HP tank puts out around 850. The SLP puts out 275? That air has to go through an HPR first. So the output shouldnt effect much but consistency because the more you have to drop a pressure the more inconsisten you will be basically

850 to 150 will be less consisten than 275 to 150. So my thinking is there is a vent in the gun like the Autococker SR's and maybe HP cause the gun to vent more air but idk.


I have a hypothesis that can only be verified by the tank's output fluctuation. Even more telling would be to compare each ball's energy with this value.


Mass
This test assumes the same brand of paint will be the same mass and diameter every time.

Consistency
These tests make a less consistent marker appear to be a less efficient marker. Why? Because a positive swing of Xfps expends proportionally more energy then a negative swing of Xfps saves.


no, the test doesn't assume the same diameter - that's why it's got a field to enter the diameter of the paint used in a test.

You are correct. Typo on my part. Fixed

good point on the consistency. So yes, the consistency of the gun will effect this test to some degree.

Consistency on the first portion of the test, 'choking'/shoot-down on the second 'real world' portion? What word are we using for velocity drop due to tank conditions?

Consistency could be +/- 0 FPS and the mass could still vary the results by 15%. i.e. a 1740 shot marker could result in a 2000 shot marker just due to using a different mass paintball.



the formula is .5M*V^2 - to to get the %15 change in energy you would need a 30% change in mass. I'm hoping that people aren't using paint that varies by 30% ball to ball on this test. Posted Image

I think you're mistaken.



Try getting a pressure tester from techt to find out
My Feedback http://www.techpb.co...howtopic=108194
HAVE AN OLD GUN AND THE BOARD IS FRIED GIVE ME A PM.
Posted Image

#56 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 26 January 2011 - 06:52 PM

the formula is .5M*V^2 - to to get the %15 change in energy you would need a 30% change in mass. I'm hoping that people aren't using paint that varies by 30% ball to ball on this test. :)

I think you're mistaken.



maybe, let's do some math and find out.

Ok, so %15 change in energy - let's us 10 joules and 11.5 joules. We'll keep the velocity constant - 90 m/s.

10 = .5x*90^2 so x = 2.47g
11.5 = .5x*90^2 so x = 2.84g

yup, you're right - %15 difference in joules 15% diff in mass.

#57 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,121 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 27 January 2011 - 10:42 AM

Please read all of this carefully. I'm not one of those people claiming 12 digits of precision are needed or that you need to include unrealistic variables that only impact results by 0.0001%. What I'm saying is that some of your test rely too heavily on untested assumptions. In this case, the myth of mass and velocity not changing by any significant degree.

..and..

If you include velocity and average mass you will have an 'absolute test' that produces repeatable and transferable results omitting no significant variables.

Mass
This test assumes the same brand of paint will be the same mass and diameter every time.
This is not true even for higher quality paint. Manufacturers really do try to produce the most consistent paintball. Unfortunately there's only so much they can do. I have measured RPS Premium and Marballizer Paintballs with weight differences of 5%, IN THE SAME BOX. The Premium has steadily declined in weight from >3.25g to <3.0g over the years. My latest batch was consistent but only averaged 2.95g! That's a 10% change for the same paint.

Velocity
Consistency of +/-5FPS (as defined in your test) is a small enough variation that velocity could be set at 280 and ignored. Unfortunately most markers are lucky to be under +/- 15fps and their velocity decreases to 220FPS as per the test. A drop of 60FPS or 30FPS swings are not insignificant energy changes.

Consistency
These tests make a less consistent marker appear to be a less efficient marker. Why? Because a positive swing of Xfps expends proportionally more energy then a negative swing of Xfps saves.
The G6R looks like it was roughly +/-30FPS. Assuming consistency improves down the road, your later tests will show an increase in efficiency even if its efficiency actually slightly decreased.

Shootdown
Here is a rhetorical question. Marker Y maintains 280FPS until it's out of air and marker Z (or marker Y at a later date) drops steadily to 220FPS. They get the same shot count. What one is more efficient and by how much?
Your test assumes the next G6R test will have the same consistency and 'shoot-down/choking'.

I understand you saying this is not an "absolute test", but the results are only comparable if the guns' shot velocity^2 sum is identical. What's the chance of that? As their shot velocities change the test results become more and more disjointed.


Absolute test
To measure efficiency all that's needed is energy input and energy output. Energy input is easy. It's just starting tank pressure minus ending tank pressure multiplied by tank volume. Temperature can be used to scale it as needed. Since most tests will only vary by 40F(10% or +/-5%), it's not really needed and can just be contributed to error.

Energy out is just the sum of each ball's energy. Use half the average mass times the square of each shot velocity.

Once ball fit (e.g. +0.002" underbore) and air supply is defined, you have the perfect efficiency test. Any tank at any pressure can be used. Any barrel can be used and (pulling from your previous barrel tests) we can make safe assumptions regarding changes. No other significant variables are missing.



One thing to consider though. If the gun shot nothing but 2.9g paint @ 250FPS for Punkwork's test and someone else ran this test with 3.2g paint at 300fps, they would only get 62% as many shots. [b]


The form indicates a chrono speed of 280. Since the velocity is the ^2 part of the equation controlling velocity makes a larger difference than controlling mass.

That said, I do think that including a mass per ball field on the form would be a good idea. We've got brand and size.

This test is not designed to test two guns against each other unless they're shooting the same paint out of the same barre at the same velocity. There's simply no way to control enough variables to create a universal efficiency test.

Consistency could be +/- 0 FPS and the mass could still vary the results by 15%. i.e. a 1740 shot marker could result in a 2000 shot marker just due to using a different mass paintball. Since consisency was likely roughly +/-30fps during the first portion and slowly dropped an additional 60FPS during the second portion, velocity was far from held constant.
This test's error when comparing two guns with the same brand paint out of the same barrel at the same average velocity is roughly +/-50%.

Can some one please explain to my why the SLP makes such a difference on the G6R to me it doesnt make much sence as the air from the tank goes through an HPR to lower the pressure maybe some one who is smarter than I am can explain exactly why?


:)
Just out of curiosity how much does the tank's output pressure fluctuate?

Fixed - Current test only assumes consistent mass and identical velocities, not ball diameter.



no, i think your missing the prupose of the test. we are comparing the SLP regulator to the normal output regulator. NOTHING MORE. so provided the paintball mass doesn't change much (same paint) and chrono speed doesn't change (we can measure this directly), that means that those two samples will be fair to compare to each other. and from that comparision we can decide if the SLP is more, less, or about the same effinecy as the normal reg.

however, i do get your point when comparing or extrapolating these resualts to full tanks, and with other guns and such. maybe this is what is freaking you out. however, we are making a passing observation that the extrapolated LSET test is very comprable to bob longs actual testing. that doesn't mean anything other then that this time it seems to have worked well, however, there are many cases where it wont predict well. more correctly, it will predict effienecy of a setup well, however, tiny varaibles in the setup will change the effienecy signifcantly.

Edited by cockerpunk, 27 January 2011 - 12:41 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."


#58 bigschank

bigschank

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 491 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central Florida

Posted 27 January 2011 - 10:58 AM

Everyone is forgetting 3 things...sigh
  • Wind speed
  • Dow Jones Industrial Average
  • If cockerpunk had a good shit that morning
I feel like an ass because i had to point this out to all you "smart guys"...oh well


hehe

Edited by bigschank, 27 January 2011 - 10:59 AM.


#59 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,121 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 27 January 2011 - 02:46 PM


...


no, i think your missing the prupose of the test. we are comparing the SLP regulator to the normal output regulator. NOTHING MORE. so provided the paintball mass doesn't change much (same paint) and chrono speed doesn't change (we can measure this directly), that means that those two samples will be fair to compare to each other. and from that comparision we can decide if the SLP is more, less, or about the same effinecy as the normal reg.

My comments were more directed to your LSET as a tool not specifically in regard to this use of it.

Although this use is more simplistic I still feel the results are well within the margin of error.

The shot count could have been identical with some very minor and easily overlooked changes (+0.09g mass change, +/-9fps consistency change, 220 vs 250 ending velocity).

Now I'm sure that Bob Long wouldn't risk his reputation on such an easy to test product. It's highly likely that he put thousands of balls through that gun to discover/verify this. As you stated, I just caution against forming any efficiency gain 'guess' primarily due to the test's massive margin of error.


I agree completly, i find the resualts well within the margin of error of the test. or to the point that when scaled up, there will be little effective gain.


however, i do get your point when comparing or extrapolating these resualts to full tanks, and with other guns and such. maybe this is what is freaking you out. however, we are making a passing observation that the extrapolated LSET test is very comprable to bob longs actual testing. that doesn't mean anything other then that this time it seems to have worked well, however, there are many cases where it wont predict well. more correctly, it will predict effienecy of a setup well, however, tiny varaibles in the setup will change the effienecy signifcantly.

I understand what you are saying about only being able to test the entire setup and not just the gun. Since not every barrel/tank/reg is identical, you will always run into this regardless of the test method. In fact it should be noted somewhere that it's a system not gun efficiency test.

It's also understandable that small variables will effect test results to some degree. Wind, for example, can effect accuracy results to a degree proportional to the wind's intensity. I'm sure you would be highly skeptical of an outdoor accuracy test that did not document wind level. All I'm advocating is that the test be done indoors so-to-speak..

Other than the additional effort involved, do you have any concerns with the efficiency test I have proposed?


Do you see any variable that would prevent the results from being repeatable or transferable?

It would be great if Mike's efficiency tests included this information. We could get a real idea as to how the guns compare and how ROF influences efficiency. I guess he would need a chrony with a PC output. We would get an idea of the gun's consistency and shootdown as well. That would be nice.

well, the fundamental problem is that many things effect effienecy. right? so without either specifying or controlling all these things you test is going to have a wide variety of outcome with any given gun. i dont think there is any good way around that, but it would be interesting to take a similar setup, and use three different weigths of balls, and three different chrono speeds and see exactly how they effect the outcomes.



^^^in bold
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."


#60 Cookybiscuit

Cookybiscuit

    Schadenfreude Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,657 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Mexico


Posted 27 January 2011 - 05:07 PM

So it is a little bit of a difference, it dosent seem big but you might get an extra pod of a 68/45 with the other reg.

Awarded: " the biggest dumbass on this forum" 2012


#61 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,121 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 27 January 2011 - 06:48 PM


...
well, the fundamental problem is that many things effect effienecy. right? so without either specifying or controlling all these things you test is going to have a wide variety of outcome with any given gun. i dont think there is any good way around that, but it would be interesting to take a similar setup, and use three different weigths of balls, and three different chrono speeds and see exactly how they effect the outcomes.


I don't see that as a problem. First, efficiency and the number of shots per tank are two different things. Maybe that's why we are not on the same page.

This reminds me of the accuracy tests. 'Accuracy' to most paintballers refers to the probability of hitting a given target. Unfortunately measuring that would require testing every possible target shape and size, that's impossible and unrealistic. Understandably Punkworks does the next best thing. Assume the target is always a circle and determine the target (circle) size that will result in a X % hit probability. Since your test isn't really measuring accuracy (due to reasonable limitations) I've always thought it more pragmatic to have a different name. Circular Target Impact Probability Test? CTIP?

Your efficiency test is in a similar situation in that it isn't measuring efficiency, it's measuring number of shots per set of variables. If it was possible to measure accuracy for any given target shape/size, we could take that data and apply it to any given target/range to determine the probability of impact. Measuring efficiency (instead of number of shots per set of variables) is much the same. We could take a system's efficiency then apply system changes to reasonably calculate the new number of shots or make comparisons.

What are all the factors that effect system efficiency?
Energy out of the tank - measurable
Energy invested in the paintballs - measurable

What are all the factors that effect number of shots per tank changes?
System efficiency (measured from above)
Barrel changes
Gun changes
Regulator changes
Tank changes
Rate of fire changes
Ambient Temperature changes
Paintball changes
- all quantifiable

Thanks to your extensive barrel testing we know how to extrapolate system efficiency changes based on barrel changes. e.g. If a12" long 0.007" underbore was used during the system efficiency test we know using a different barrel wouldn't gain any substantial efficiency or consistency. We can get that same insight into regulator, ROF, temperature, etc changes down the road. If you were to operate backwards and measure number of shots per partially known set of variables, the results could not be used to make comparisons since the variables were not held constant. In this case Energy expelled via ball mass and velocity.

Thank you for commenting on this.


i'd argue that all those lower variables listed effects SYSTEM efficiency. if you can get a 30fps swing in velocity just due to barrel alone, that most certainly effects both efficiency and shots per tank.
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."


#62 Steephill

Steephill

    Dota 2 > Life itself

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ft Worth, TX

Posted 27 January 2011 - 10:59 PM

I tried reading this thread, and it hurt my brain.

My Feedback +14/-0

`kook 2/1/12 "The gold standard isn't what is most popular. By that logic, Justin Beiber is the gold standard of music."


#63 bigschank

bigschank

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 491 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central Florida

Posted 27 January 2011 - 11:09 PM

Im just waiting to see the protege results

#64 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 27 January 2011 - 11:34 PM

Im just waiting to see the protege results


me too. need to get more paint.

and Poe and Gordon - I do think we're talking around each other. The LSET is designed to give a number - that number is "shots per 1000 psi per inch^3" the second half gives "shots below 1000 psi per inch^3" Both of those are only talking about a particular set up. Think of the test more as a way to tune your gun than as something you would put in an ad. In this case we were changing one variable - the tank reg and repeating the test with as identical rigs as is practical. Same barrel, same gun, same settings, same bag of paint.

Poe - I agree in principle that recording more data about the test conditions is almost always a good thing - but in this case my main goal when developing the test was to keep it simple and easy to apply.

#65 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,590 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 28 January 2011 - 12:04 PM

Absolute test
To measure efficiency all that's needed is energy input and energy output. Energy input is easy. It's just starting tank pressure minus ending tank pressure multiplied by tank volume. Temperature can be used to scale it as needed. Since most tests will only vary by 40F(10% or +/-5%), it's not really needed and can just be contributed to error.

Energy out is just the sum of each ball's energy. Use half the average mass times the square of each shot velocity.

Once ball fit (e.g. +0.002" underbore) and air supply is defined, you have the perfect efficiency test. Any tank at any pressure can be used. Any barrel can be used and (pulling from your previous barrel tests) we can make safe assumptions regarding changes. No other significant variables are missing.


back to your question from a while ago - the only hole I see in your proposed perfect efficiency test is the paint itself. Since there's usually a >.005 variation ball to ball in size I don't think regular paint will work for an absolute test. They're claiming +/- .003 on the Hydrotech balls - maybe they would give us a better projectile for this test. It's even possible that mass variations will be small enough that they'll give us a good shot at applying the LSET in a more universal way.

#66 Spider200081

Spider200081

    Member-608 Spartans Dubuque, IA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,892 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dubuque, IA

Posted 28 January 2011 - 04:54 PM


The SLP does work fine for dm's and ego's right? Just curious since I might be interested in getting a g6r and needing a new tank now would possibly get a slp aslong as it works fine with ego and dm markers. Well basically any 2 reg marker.


have not heard about the dms but we think no. we have shoot it on an ego and it was OK but would stick to the g6r and the victorys.



thanks ray

#67 OOG671

OOG671

    Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,083 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 February 2011 - 06:36 PM

Awesome read even though I didn't understand all the statistical stuff....hey...I barely passed statistics in college like 10+ years ago.

One thing for sure...the G6R is hella efficient and regardless of which Ninja tank your using....an additional 90+ shots on a 68/4500 could be a life saver to some people....

also...this test and others makes me happy that I supported the Punkworks Sticker/Raffle drawing...4 more days people...not too late to send some money to Punkworks to support their work...get cool stickers...and get entered into a raffle drawing for some cool stuff.
Pro Jerseys FST Feedback:http://www.techpb.co...showtopic=61562
Muppet #72, Christian Baller




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users