Jump to content


betasniper

Member Since 06 Dec 2008
Offline Last Active Jan 29 2012 10:09 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The technological limit of paintball?

06 February 2012 - 12:11 AM

But it can be effectively argued that you just don't need as many FS rounds as you do normal paintballs to be effective. Comparing them numerically is like comparing apples to oranges. Think about it, most paint people shoot doesn't hit their target, and normal paintball guns fire them at very high rates, and in large quantities. The largest FS-compatible magazines come with mike's FN 303, at 15 each. You will never shoot FS rounds in the same quantity as normal paintballs, nor should you. FS rounds won't replace paintballs, but they are far more than a novelty.


Just wanted to say that the largest capacity FS compatible magazine would be a Q-Loader with a new screw designed by alpha434. It allows you to hold 80 FS rounds. http://www.mcarterbr...s-like-pro.html
Although I don't think he is making them any more.

In Topic: Planet Eclipse Etha

26 January 2012 - 02:41 PM

Typical Spools generally cannot utilize a face seal. Since this design had the ability to use a face seal instead of an oring, The firing piston is a pressure controlled poppet where as the actual bolt is a forward air spring returned spool (FASR). Lets look at another design, The Invert Mini or Axe, They are unarguably PCP's. They are also FASR bolts. If we made ONE change and swapped the face seal for an oring, The Mini or Axe would still be a Pressure Controlled Poppet. In this case, The seal type has made no difference in the operation of the marker (except maybe efficiency). Lets try to put a face seal on an Ion. Lets change out the ID oring for a face seal. With only this single change, The Traditional Spool Valve marker Will Not Function. As soon as the bolt moves forward, the dump chamber is venting. This design can be fixed but by that time you have a completely different marker. In Ethas case, swapping the face seal in favor of an oring doesn't affect the operation where as this same replacement in a traditional spool will cause the marker to cease functioning.

That said, It doesn't really matter to me what its called. Call it a Panda Bear for all I care.

I like it.

In Topic: Want to do a C3 efficiency test

26 January 2012 - 01:00 AM

The Tippmann C3 is 3% efficient at 50000 shots per 16.9oz. It has tons of room for improvement. Even if made to 9% efficiency, that would be 2400 shots in 8 grams of propane.

In Topic: how fast can a paintball gun shoot?

31 October 2011 - 05:07 PM

80% is a consistent fudge factor. :P

But yes, fudge factor none the less.

And it seems that my math gives a drop speed of 28ms for the rotor, I don't know if this is true, but I think it is close to reality.

In Topic: how fast can a paintball gun shoot?

31 October 2011 - 01:55 PM

in the end, i think loading the gun becomes more difficult then making the gun cycle that fast.

Yeah, this is true for almost all markers.

The limit to how fast a hopper loads is determined by the force it applies to the paintball. This affects the acceleration of the paintball into the breach. So there is going to be a maximum acceleration all loaders are limited by because acceleration is force divided by mass. And we know paintballs break after a specific force. I would try to figure out the maximum acceleration that any loader is capable of, but I don't want to right now. (Sorry for being lazy)

This is the formula for determining the time it takes for an object at rest to drop a specified distance.

T = Sqrt(2d/a)

Where:
T is Time
d is distance to fall
a is acceleration

I will be using inches in my calculations.

T = Sqrt(2(.68)/386)

T = Sqrt(1.36/386)

T = Sqrt(.003523316)

T = .0593575 sec

And in order to find out the maximum rate of fire we invert this number.

RoF = 1/T = 1/.05936

~16.85 balls per second.

This is the maximum rate of fire for a gravity feed marker. This is not taking into account the time the balls spend at rest when the marker is firing. To do that, I generally multiply this number by 80%

13.48 balls per second.

Now to do this with the rotor.

In order to figure out the acceleration of the rotor. I took the freefall speed test as 50 bps and some how came up with the number 1700in/s^2 which is about 4.4 gravities.

Now we plug this into the first equation and we get:

T = Sqrt(1.36/1700)

T = Sqrt(.0008)

T = .028284 sec

RoF = 1/.028284

~35.355bps

Adjust for 80%

~28.284bps for the rotor.

Which is pretty much what we see in real life. Perhaps I am over thinking this?