Jump to content


Photo

CO2 vs. HPA Simple Test


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 KRA SHARPSHOOTER

KRA SHARPSHOOTER

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 09:36 PM

Lord Odin asked me to do a simple test comparing CO2 vs. HPA. I had nothing better to do this evening so I decided to attempt this test right away.

Basically this test consisted of simply shooting 50 shots through my A-5 with CO2, then switching to HPA and shoot another 50 shots.

Tanks:
I used a 9oz CO2 that was full minus 6 shots from chrono, and about 60 shots from testing out my TUSK yesterday. :D
The HPA tank that I used was a Pure Energy 72ci/3,000psi. It was filled to 2,500psi before I conducted this test.

A-5 Specs:
Tippmann A-5 *Polished Internals*
Dogleg Air Thru Stock
12″ C-Series Barrel
Response Trigger *shooting semi*
Hogs Den TUSK Trigger
TechT Complete Cyclone Upgrade Kit:
= Vortex Mod
= Lightning Rod
= QEPH
= Squishy Paddles *Green*
Remote line.
Lubed with Hoppes #9 oil.

Testing Data:
CO2 vs HPA - Google Docs

My opinion:
I'll keep this simple. It seems as though HPA is much more consistent over CO2.

#2 velocity1221

velocity1221

    G3ftw

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 259 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Courtice, Ontario

Posted 08 April 2009 - 09:43 PM

Yeah thats pretty cool, wish i had a chrono to check this out on. But the jumps in co2 velocity are huge compared to hpa's.
Dangerous Power IQ - NDZ On/Off, Custom Lexan Grips
Spyder MR1 - Trinity Tri Mount, NcStar Red dot, BT flashsight, custom sling, Custom 10 round feed, Trinity Spring kit.
Splatmaster Rapide - Rare Co2 Quick Changer


#3 GrenadeMaster

GrenadeMaster

    Be A Doer - Not A Talker

  • Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Goshen, Indiana

Posted 08 April 2009 - 09:44 PM

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.

Edited by GrenadeMaster, 08 April 2009 - 09:46 PM.

There's two kinds of people in this world when you boil it all down. You got your talkers and you got your doers. Most people are just talkers, all they do is talk. But when it is all said and done, it's the doers that change this world. And when they do that, they change us, and that's why we never forget them. So which one are you? Do you just talk about it, or do you stand up and do something about it?

#4 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 April 2009 - 10:01 PM

I think this is a great test because it puts one of our most common beliefs that we take for granted to the test and backs it up. Awesome job, KRA.

#5 Dr. Isotope

Dr. Isotope

    Rangers... mount up.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 414 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chillin' in the Compound.

Posted 08 April 2009 - 10:02 PM

HPA is more consistent because it starts as a gas in the cylinder and stays a gas in the gun.
CO2 can be inconsistent because it starts as a liquid in the cylinder and becomes a gas in the gun.

As an average, HPA will net ~10 shots per cubic inch from a 3000psi tank.
As an average, CO2 will net ~50 shots per ounce of tank size.

So a 48/3000 could be expected to net ~450 shots.
A 9oz CO2 tank would net ~450 shots.
But a 20oz CO2 tank, which is physically similar in size and weight to a 48/3000, would net ~900 shots.

CO2 is not an all evil thing. Many people still use it to great effect. High-pressure guns, like Phantoms and many Palmer's guns, prefer CO2 because the inlet pressure is higher than what an HPA tank reg will provide.
"A good man can be stupid and still be good. But a bad man must have brains." --Maxim Gorky

#6 cockerpunk

cockerpunk

    All the Dudes

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Male


Posted 08 April 2009 - 10:05 PM

great performance from the a5 on that too. SD of 3.5 is pretty damn good.

good test!
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."


#7 D.K.

D.K.

    L.L.L.

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,476 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 April 2009 - 10:36 PM

Nice. You could've further tested it between different climate conditions (where C02 would've FAILED). Haha.

#8 Texas Cheezburgr

Texas Cheezburgr

    :D :O :S

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,924 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth, TX

Posted 08 April 2009 - 10:44 PM

Cool. :)
This user has been banned for repeated trolling and breaking the rules here at TechPB. Sorry Texas, you are no longer welcome here at TechPB

#9 Christopher

Christopher

    Ignore Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,569 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 12 April 2009 - 11:55 PM

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.



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.

#10 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

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


Posted 13 April 2009 - 07:30 AM

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.


that's prob because of the sweet spot of your gun against the output pressure of your HPA tank. with equal output the HPA is better.

#11 Christopher

Christopher

    Ignore Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,569 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 April 2009 - 10:51 AM

that's prob because of the sweet spot of your gun against the output pressure of your HPA tank. with equal output the HPA is better.


Ok this might sound REALLY stupid, but I have a different theory. Remember when you guys did that preliminary tank regulator testing (I can't find it for some reason)? The consistency of the output pressures varied quite a bit. Is it possible that since the HPA is not being dual regulated, that the fluctuations are more noticable than than the fluctuations of the CO2 tank?

Just a thought.

#12 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

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


Posted 13 April 2009 - 11:16 AM

that's prob because of the sweet spot of your gun against the output pressure of your HPA tank. with equal output the HPA is better.


Ok this might sound REALLY stupid, but I have a different theory. Remember when you guys did that preliminary tank regulator testing (I can't find it for some reason)? The consistency of the output pressures varied quite a bit. Is it possible that since the HPA is not being dual regulated, that the fluctuations are more noticable than than the fluctuations of the CO2 tank?

Just a thought.


prob not - I've seen some tank regs go from 750-950, but CO2 can be from the high 500's up to 1200-ish. I've never seen a HPA tank fluctuate that much.

#13 Spitlebug

Spitlebug

    Canadian Cross Dressing, Bull ball Toucher.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Campbell River, B.C.

Posted 13 April 2009 - 11:47 AM

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.sicandbry...ng Document.xls

So tempted to suspend Kitty just so I can say I have....
Okay, fuck it....I just banned Kitty, that's going in the sig.

Administrator - ICD Owner's Group

Posted Image


#14 Christopher

Christopher

    Ignore Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,569 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 April 2009 - 11:52 AM

prob not - I've seen some tank regs go from 750-950, but CO2 can be from the high 500's up to 1200-ish. I've never seen a HPA tank fluctuate that much.



While CO2 can fluctuate from 500-1200, it won't unless the temperature of the tank changes. If you are not causing significant cooldown inside the tank, you won't get any fluctuations. It's the same principle that allows siphon setups to run so consistently.

I don't really know a whole lot about the direct impact of pressure vs. velocity. But could you really expect good consistency out of a 200 PSI variance, regardless of the gas type? Something about that just seems off. I don't see how sweet spotting the pressure could negate that large of a pressure change.

#15 Spitlebug

Spitlebug

    Canadian Cross Dressing, Bull ball Toucher.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Campbell River, B.C.

Posted 13 April 2009 - 11:54 AM

Something about that just seems off. I don't see how sweet spotting the pressure could negate that large of a pressure change.


It can't.

So tempted to suspend Kitty just so I can say I have....
Okay, fuck it....I just banned Kitty, that's going in the sig.

Administrator - ICD Owner's Group

Posted Image


#16 Timmy

Timmy

    Sophomore Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 13 April 2009 - 06:43 PM

HPA is more consistent because it starts as a gas in the cylinder and stays a gas in the gun.
CO2 can be inconsistent because it starts as a liquid in the cylinder and becomes a gas in the gun.


Saying this isn't proving it is true.
If you are under 18 and your parents have no idea you are involved in paintball, yet you have had 10+ guns. put this in your sig.
If you think pumps shouldnt have to mercy people, put this in your sig.
If you think Rap is for posers and wanna bees, put this in your sig.
if your under 18 and pay for your own gear, put this in ur sigPosted Image

#17 Christopher

Christopher

    Ignore Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,569 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 April 2009 - 07:01 PM

HPA is more consistent because it starts as a gas in the cylinder and stays a gas in the gun.
CO2 can be inconsistent because it starts as a liquid in the cylinder and becomes a gas in the gun.


Saying this isn't proving it is true.


And it's actually wrong. HPA is consistent because it's regulated. If it wasn't regulated, it would be MUCH less consistent than CO2, because the output pressure would constantly be going down.

Just look at airguns instead of paintball guns. Some airguns use unregulated HPA, at about 3000 PSI. Each shot is drastically less powerful than the last. Airguns powered by CO2 are much more consistent. There's nothing magical about it.

#18 Lotus

Lotus

    Tech Guy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,925 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 13 April 2009 - 07:23 PM

Sweet spotting the reg helps mitigate pressure changes because as the pressure drops, the velocity drops, and as the pressure increases, the velocity drops. Therefore, you don't get drastic changes in velocity even when you get changes in temperature. This occurs because of the increased pressure forcing the poppet valve closed thus lowering the mechanical dwell.

(for demonstration purposes only)
For instance, a non sweet spotted could have a velocity of:
289, 290, 290, 291, 291, 291, 292, 292, 293

and sweet spotted, that would be
289, 290, 290, 291, 291, 291, 290, 290, 289

As you can see, there is a drastic difference in consistency even though the degree of pressure variation is the same.

Posted Image


#19 Starter

Starter

    The Bestest of All Titles

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,264 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WNY

Posted 13 April 2009 - 07:26 PM

HPA is more consistent because it starts as a gas in the cylinder and stays a gas in the gun.
CO2 can be inconsistent because it starts as a liquid in the cylinder and becomes a gas in the gun.


Saying this isn't proving it is true.


And it's actually wrong. HPA is consistent because it's regulated. If it wasn't regulated, it would be MUCH less consistent than CO2, because the output pressure would constantly be going down.

Just look at airguns instead of paintball guns. Some airguns use unregulated HPA, at about 3000 PSI. Each shot is drastically less powerful than the last. Airguns powered by CO2 are much more consistent. There's nothing magical about it.


tnat is why hpa is more money because it is REGULATED so its going to outperform c02 in most cases

#20 anthoneyk123

anthoneyk123

    Sexy Beast

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,289 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California, San Diego


Posted 16 April 2009 - 05:36 PM

im saying this right now propane is more efficiant than all
Spisla: Have I posted my phantom in here yet? It's smexy
Baux18: jeez kyle why dont you just go have sex with the thing.
Spisla: I have. more than once actually.

#21 GrenadeMaster

GrenadeMaster

    Be A Doer - Not A Talker

  • Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Goshen, Indiana

Posted 16 April 2009 - 07:59 PM

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.sicandbry...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.
There's two kinds of people in this world when you boil it all down. You got your talkers and you got your doers. Most people are just talkers, all they do is talk. But when it is all said and done, it's the doers that change this world. And when they do that, they change us, and that's why we never forget them. So which one are you? Do you just talk about it, or do you stand up and do something about it?

#22 Spitlebug

Spitlebug

    Canadian Cross Dressing, Bull ball Toucher.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,044 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Campbell River, B.C.

Posted 16 April 2009 - 08:06 PM

I will...


Good.

So tempted to suspend Kitty just so I can say I have....
Okay, fuck it....I just banned Kitty, that's going in the sig.

Administrator - ICD Owner's Group

Posted Image


#23 The-Phantom

The-Phantom

    Rock N' Cock

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Marcos, California


Posted 16 April 2009 - 08:11 PM

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

f_oneshotm_05c6b49.jpg
Please feel free to private message me if you have a question about something I've posted!
If you show me an inch, I'll show you the dead-box.

-Brett


#24 GrenadeMaster

GrenadeMaster

    Be A Doer - Not A Talker

  • Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Goshen, Indiana

Posted 16 April 2009 - 08:14 PM

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.
There's two kinds of people in this world when you boil it all down. You got your talkers and you got your doers. Most people are just talkers, all they do is talk. But when it is all said and done, it's the doers that change this world. And when they do that, they change us, and that's why we never forget them. So which one are you? Do you just talk about it, or do you stand up and do something about it?

#25 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 16 April 2009 - 08:36 PM

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.

#26 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

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


Posted 17 April 2009 - 08:33 AM

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.

#27 Christopher

Christopher

    Ignore Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,569 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 19 April 2009 - 05:02 PM

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.

#28 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 23 April 2009 - 09:34 PM

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...

#29 Christopher

Christopher

    Ignore Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,569 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 April 2009 - 10:25 PM

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.


Posted Image

The World Infamous SuperUltraAutoElectroMegaHyperBlastemFlatter MKVXII (v.3.5.1)?

Edited by Christopher, 23 April 2009 - 10:34 PM.


#30 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 23 April 2009 - 10:55 PM

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.

#31 Christopher

Christopher

    Ignore Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,569 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 April 2009 - 11:15 PM

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.

#32 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 23 April 2009 - 11:27 PM

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?

#33 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

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

Posted 23 April 2009 - 11:45 PM

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 :)
<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-->

#34 Christopher

Christopher

    Ignore Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,569 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 23 April 2009 - 11:56 PM

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.

#35 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

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


Posted 24 April 2009 - 08:38 AM

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.

#36 azreal

azreal

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 176 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 April 2009 - 11:33 AM

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.

Edited by azreal, 24 April 2009 - 11:34 AM.


#37 Maj Tom

Maj Tom

    Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,658 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Davisburg, MI

Posted 24 April 2009 - 02:15 PM

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.

#38 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

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


Posted 24 April 2009 - 03:31 PM

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.

#39 Maj Tom

Maj Tom

    Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,658 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Davisburg, MI

Posted 24 April 2009 - 06:09 PM

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.

Edited by Maj Tom, 24 April 2009 - 06:16 PM.


#40 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

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

Posted 02 June 2009 - 01:06 AM

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....amp;output=html

CO2 was far more consistent

Edited by Leftystrikesback, 02 June 2009 - 01:06 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-->

#41 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 02 June 2009 - 10:45 AM

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....amp;output=html

CO2 was far more consistent

I'm not familiar with the phantoms but do you have an idea why Co2 did so much better? What was your paint to bore relationship?

#42 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

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

Posted 02 June 2009 - 02:07 PM

I'm not familiar with the phantoms but do you have an idea why Co2 did so much better? What was your paint to bore relationship?


No idea, other than the easy to say, but hard to qualify "the valve was designed for CO2" argument, which I always thought was a bunch of BS.
That's why I was interested if a similar test had been done. I think Bryce intended to do something like this too.

If you look at the data for the HPA, you can see that there are odd outliers where the velocity dropped off considerably. Velocity never spiked, but it dipped from around 290's to 243, then 255, then 269. I don't know why that would happen, but it happened. My tank was at 3k psi, none of my other guns get drops in velocity with that tank (Same one I used for the "holdng the pump handle forward" test, so you can compare the consistency the tank is capable of). The paint was good.

The stock barrel is .690, I was shooting DXS Gold that measured about .684 so I had a fairly large overbore going on. It was the same paint and barrel for both tests so that should have no impact on the relative results.
<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-->

#43 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

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


Posted 02 June 2009 - 02:09 PM

my guess is that it's a sweet-spot issue with the valve.

I would be really curious about what the output pressure of your HPA tank is.

#44 Leftystrikesback

Leftystrikesback

    Mech Master

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

Posted 02 June 2009 - 02:15 PM

Sorry, I don't have a gauge to read the output pressure of my tank. It is higher than the CO2 output because the velocity went up. it's a DXS 4500 psi regulator if that tells you anything.

Edited by Leftystrikesback, 02 June 2009 - 02:16 PM.

<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-->

#45 brycelarson

brycelarson

    Show me the Data!

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


Posted 02 June 2009 - 02:18 PM

Sorry, I don't have a gauge to read the output pressure of my tank. It is higher than the CO2 output because the velocity went up. it's a DXS 4500 psi regulator if that tells you anything.


might have actually been lower - it's air pressure that holds the valve closed as well as spring pressure. most likely higher, but you can't tell just from velocity.

#46 Christopher

Christopher

    Ignore Me

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,569 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 02 June 2009 - 02:47 PM

I think I might have suggested this in a different thread, but I'll sum it up here.

1. I think that it's possible that the output pressure of HPA tanks are not really as consistent as people believe. However, since the vast majority of modern guns come equipped with a HPR, the actual consistency of the tank regulator is not really important, as long as it's close to the ball park of what you want your actual operating pressure to be. The HPR of your gun minimizes most inconsistencies by regulating the air a second time. But when you put an HPA tank directly on a gun without a regulator, such as the Phantom, those inconsistencies may become noticeable.

2. The uncanny Phantom consistency dealing with unregulated CO2 could be explained by the fact that as a very efficient pump, the Phantom does use enough gas quickly enough to cause noticeable cooldown within the CO2 tank. The cooldown that does occur may be further negated by the heat absorption that takes place during the time it takes in between shots. And if the temperature of the tank does not fluctuate, the pressure will stay exactly the same, resulting in a very consistent output pressure.

It may not even be something that is inherent to all HPA systems. Not all regulators are built equally. It's also important to realize that there really is a regulator on your tank. It sounds stupid, but I really feel like a lot of people forget this. Think about it, how often do you clean/lubricate/replace O-rings in your tank regulator compared to the rest of your gun? Most people never even take it apart, let alone clean it.

I'm really just throwing stuff out there. I'm not sure if I'm wrong or right, but that's the theory I'm sticking to until someone finds a more definitive answer.

Also, here were my results from the test with my Shocker and Maxflo:

http://spreadsheets....R-FXN2DoLWkCIjw

Edited by Christopher, 02 June 2009 - 03:27 PM.


#47 RIPB

RIPB

    The Rhode Island Baller

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rhode Island

Posted 02 March 2011 - 08:11 PM

im saying this right now propane is more efficiant than all

Also more flammable :)
My setup: Etha, Empire Prophecy, Ninja 50/4500

#48 wagz86

wagz86

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 27 June 2011 - 07:19 AM

Older thread I know... what im curious about is the exact setup ud have to go through to make co2 equal to the consistency of dual regged hpa? Is it as simple as putting in an anti siphon and dual regging the co2 with say for example two palmers stabs? Im experimenting with this myself at the moment and that's exactly what ill do. Its be a 3.5 oz on my empire trracer, an anti siphon, and 2 hp stabs. The final stage one will definetly be a pps cause I have one already. But the initial one will just be a cheaper one im sure cause I don't feel like buying a second.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users