Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: CO2 is better than HPA in ideal conditions - Craig Palmer

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Redondo Beach, California
    Posts
    2,644

    CO2 is better than HPA in ideal conditions - Craig Palmer

    From:http://www.palmer-pursuit.com/techpages/CP-hints.htm

    Craig Palmer wrote:

    CO2 Vs HPA (High Pressure Air)

    Palmer guns are designed to run off of any compressed gas.

    CO2 is just a better gas in ideal conditions.

    HPA expands faster than CO2. CO2 has better properties for launching the ball because it expands slower. When in colder temps, HPA properties stay more consistent, rather than loosing some of its expansion rate due to cold temps.

    I myself play with CO2 as much as possible but if its too cold or or in a tourney Ill use HPA. Hot days are perfect for CO2, my tanks last forever on a Blazer! I also use the screw in HPA type preset to around 800 psi so I don't have to change my bottom line setup.
    Interesting...

    I think for slow ROF, CO2 (with a good regulator) is just fine. However, since the arms race (high ROF spray and pray style) has practically taken over the paintball world, I think HPA is a better choice than CO2.

    What do you think?


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Over there
    Posts
    407
    I think Craig is eating mushrooms...

    Sure, if ya shot 1 ball a minute and had 20 regs to make sure you had the same pressure each time you fired Co2 would be better than HPA in some cases because the Co2 tank would last 3 and a half years and the HPA may last 3...

    Consistency = Accuracy.

    I have never seen Co2 more consistent than HPA, ever. If any of you have... maybe Craig passed you the bag of schrooms.

  3. #3
    Well thsoe are very good points. But one reason I can see them as being big in the mainstream is that it takes a fraction of the time to fill a HPA now.

    All you have to do it connect the line to your fill nipple port, push the magic button, wait till the guage says 3000 or 4500, and your done!

    C02 on the other hand.....Has to be done by someone who knows how to fill it. As some of us know you cant fill a tank all the way up, it has to be like 1/3 liquid or something of that sort. So it takes a good solid 1-2 minutes for them to take your tank, screw it in. Fill it up, burp it, top it off, then unscrew the tank.

    That sort of takes away from alot of pod B'ing, rest, and worrying about other gear. Out of the what, Usually 5 minute break periods?

    I still play rec, and live in TX, so natturaly at the moment i use C02. But I am really looking foreward to a HPA tank, So I can have more time to gather my gear up before having to run back to the staging area (OPGT has sort of a LARGE staging area and takes a while to walk or even dash across).

    My 2 cents at 2:40 am


  4. #4
    The caveat here is IDEAL conditions. Throw out temperatures and to some degree rate of fire from this argument.

    He's talking about anti-siphoned, double regulated CO2 here, in a moderate temperature.

    In order for his logic to hold up, you must have the CO2 at a lower pressure than the maximum coldest temperature you will face, including temperature drop due to gas conversion.

    If you have a high end pneumatic for example, at 350 psi, double regulated, at 70 degrees, that is ideal conditions. Under those circumstances, and those circumstances only, does that statement apply. If the temperature drastically drops, or the operating pressure is at 800 psi and your shooting fast, or unregulated, his statement is null and void, and as he said, he'd use HPA.

    While I'm not sure for the ridiculous, unnecessary rates of fire, you will not notice abnormal shootdown for the normal rates of fire. Say 15 bps and lower for most high end markers. Before you start spouting off, remember, we have a dual regulated setup at low pressure. You only experience shootdown with CO2 when it has to drop its pressure lower than your operating pressure in the process of gas conversion. Check out a CO2 conversion chart. CO2 is approximately 300 psi at 0 degrees farenheit.


    Now we're all clear.

    And for the anti-hype of the day, while HPA is less temperature dependent than CO2, it is still affected by temperature. Don't start assuming that just because your using HPA that your gonna have this uber consistent marker. You can setup that marker to be just as consistent with CO2.

    Under ideal conditions, Craig Palmer is correct. While many of you may be correct that it is simply easier to use HPA when available, that does not discredit the statement made.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Far North
    Posts
    499
    Craig lives and plays in Southern California. (As do, I'm sure, many of the rest of you.)

    When the outside temp is 85+ degrees and you only shoot 200 to 400 shots a game on a gun that runs at 400 psi, there's nothing at all wrong with CO2. It's a denser storage medium, cheaper as a system (a CO2 tank costs like $35) and if properly regulated- and you never or rarely let the tank self-chill below the regged pressure- it's more than adequate.

    But for those of us that play when 60 degrees is considered hot, or want to shoot more than 400 shots a game, or have a marker that needs more than 300 to 400 psi input, CO2 is thoroughly overshadowed by HPA.

    Why would he change for a tourney? A) He shoots more, and B) less likely to have velocity changes due to the temp change of the tank. Neither are "ideal" conditions, which makes me think there's an "ideal" gas, and then there's one far more useful in real-world, non-ideal conditions.

    Doc.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •