View Poll Results: Should I pursue the design?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes! And i'd probably buy one!

    10 31.25%
  • Yes.

    13 40.63%
  • No.

    5 15.63%
  • No! thats a terrible idea!

    4 12.50%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 59 of 59

Thread: Low Pressure Mag

  1. #31
    Exactly my point, ill design a base valve, then make it, then you buy it and do whatever you want with it. Whether that's a hyper performance gun with a delrin bolt, or a durable good performance gun that can also be used as a hammer.
    The Maniac Inside

  2. #32
    I'm not an engineer but once upon a time this was a bi-weekly discussion on AO. If you could figure a way to maintain the recharge rate and lower the pressure I would be very surprised. Show me 32 CPS with zero shoot down (in fact some shoot up) at 200psi. It seems counter intuitive. I'm also fairly certain that the high pressure = low efficiency thing is a myth. The volume of air required to accelerate a paintball up to 300 fps is the same regardless of input pressure.

    If a paintball is going from zero - 300 fps in the first 8 inches of a 0.689 barrel then the amount of air being dumped behind the ball has to be equal regardless of the platform delivering the air. What makes MAGs seem inefficient is there inability to shoot "to the bottom of the tank".

    Again, I'm not an engineer, but seeing is believing and so far everyone who has promised this has delivered hype and nonsense. I wish you luck.

    ~Patron

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by pgop2.0 View Post
    I'm not an engineer but once upon a time this was a bi-weekly discussion on AO. If you could figure a way to maintain the recharge rate and lower the pressure I would be very surprised. Show me 32 CPS with zero shoot down (in fact some shoot up) at 200psi. It seems counter intuitive. I'm also fairly certain that the high pressure = low efficiency thing is a myth. The volume of air required to accelerate a paintball up to 300 fps is the same regardless of input pressure.

    If a paintball is going from zero - 300 fps in the first 8 inches of a 0.689 barrel then the amount of air being dumped behind the ball has to be equal regardless of the platform delivering the air. What makes MAGs seem inefficient is there inability to shoot "to the bottom of the tank".

    Again, I'm not an engineer, but seeing is believing and so far everyone who has promised this has delivered hype and nonsense. I wish you luck.

    ~Patron
    While your base theory on low vs high pressure on efficiency is somewhat correct, the gap between the paintball and the barrel allows air to escape. High pressure air escapes at a faster rate causing more waste, lower pressure still escapes, but at a slower rate. This means that low pressure air loses less energy in the barrel than high pressure air, allowing you to use less energy (air) to get a paintball to the same velocity. Also a lower pressure volume of air does not expand as quickly or violently as high pressure air. This means that once the air escapes the barrel there will be a lower power/speed pressure wave meaning less sound. It will also accelerate the ball more gradually meaning it is more gentle with paint.

    I can get around the recharge/shootdown issue in low pressure markers simply by updating the regulator. These days markers are capable of a low pressure stream of 35+ bps paint with no shoot down.

  4. #34

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by FPSmaniac152 View Post
    While your base theory on low vs high pressure on efficiency is somewhat correct, the gap between the paintball and the barrel allows air to escape. High pressure air escapes at a faster rate causing more waste, lower pressure still escapes, but at a slower rate. This means that low pressure air loses less energy in the barrel than high pressure air, allowing you to use less energy (air) to get a paintball to the same velocity. Also a lower pressure volume of air does not expand as quickly or violently as high pressure air. This means that once the air escapes the barrel there will be a lower power/speed pressure wave meaning less sound. It will also accelerate the ball more gradually meaning it is more gentle with paint.

    I can get around the recharge/shootdown issue in low pressure markers simply by updating the regulator. These days markers are capable of a low pressure stream of 35+ bps paint with no shoot down.
    According to this thread:
    http://www.automags.org/forums/showt...al-Data-Thread

    The peak pressure behind the ball coming from a "high pressure" E-mag was only 60psi. Lower than the Cocker, Impy, Angel, and Matrix at the time. If I'm reading the graph properly, the pressure falls off far more evenly than it's contemporaries. This would seem to directly contradict your notion. While the Mag's operating pressure is higher (to increase cycle speed), the volume and pressure of air behind the ball is as low as the lowest of "low" pressure markers at the time.

    Are todays markers dumping air at less than 60 psi behind the ball? If they were they would be needing longer barrels would they not?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    64
    For further research you might consider investigating the "Flex" valve that Tippmann is using in the phenom. It does not use the on/off assembly from the Automag design, thus circumventing any patent infringement, but it is a low pressure regulated blow forward design with 30bps ROF capability. Keep in mind if you do build a valve utilizing the on/off assembly and sell it for a profit you would be violating the patent on the Automag valve.

    An extremely low pressure, efficient mag has always been a "dream" design of mag enthusiasts. But like the previous poster brought out, Mags already run at pretty low pressures. Internally at about 325 and at the ball 60 PSI. How low do you think you can go and move that bolt fast enough and fire at velocity?

    You claim high pressure gas escapes "faster" around the ball than low pressure gas? Isn't that proportionate also? If the gas is pushing the ball faster and escaping faster, then a slower ball push, would mean a slower gas escape, but a longer time in the barrel, meaning it would still lose the same amount of gas over a longer period of time. Doesn't that balance out?

    Velocity, mass, and energy are all calculated fields. There is no real guesswork here. It should all be able to be calculated. I am no math genius by far, but I'm assuming you should be able to mathematically prove your idea before you even bother going into any kind of production.
    I would love to see the math.

    Sandman

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Halifax, N.S., Canada
    Posts
    7,389
    The air pressure dilemma is not always as easy as looking at the pressure available. It takes a certain amount of force to accelerate the ball up to the desired velocity within the confines of the length of the barrel. That force is delivered by air pressure on the back of the ball. Now, this is where it gets dicey, and the different delivery mechanisms actually make one better than another.

    The theory is that low pressure is more efficient. The truth is, that they are both equal. A large chamber at a lower pressure delivers the same energy as a small chamber at a higher pressure. The inefficiencies come in the delivery system. This is where the air gets choked off as it fills the void behind the ball. If you could magically open the front of the valve instantly without any restrictions for both a high pressure or low pressure chamber containing the same energy, they would both shoot the ball at the same velocity.

    Low pressure systems are more efficient in current designs due to their delivery systems. The chamber has less restriction when opened so the lower pressure air is more fully available without restriction. Therefore, it actually pushes the ball down the barrel rather than chasing it down the barrel after the initial impulse of air is released. You could make these delivery systems much more efficient using a smaller chamber and higher pressure, but the machining work and tolerances would need to be much more precise to prevent the orings from binding. Plus, most of the small solenoid switches don't handle higher pressures well. Changing these parameters to operate at high pressure would drastically increase the cost of the design.

    The high pressure systems on the market today use alternate methods of delivering the air from the front chamber. Many use a poppet valve. These actually work really well for a simple design. The puff of high pressure air released when the poppet is opened has a short, high pressure impulse force so it pushes the ball rather efficiently without much trail-off of air.

    The mag uses a spool valve. The inefficiency lies in the bolt spring. It keeps backward force against the bolt and acts like a regulator for the air flow. That means that the ball can get away from the air supply after the initial high pressure impulse, because the regulated air escaping around the back of the bolt cannot maintain enough force to push the ball. Only the initial impulse can propel the ball and all other air following that is just wasted. A lower force differential and resulting slower bolt movement caused by a level 10 bolt setup makes it even worst, which is why efficiency went down when level 10 bolts were introduced.

    If you want to truly make an efficient gun/valve design the mag valve is not bad. You just need to get rid of the bolt spring so that the valve fully opens without restriction and will immediately dump all of the air behind the ball. That will cause you to use a lower pressure to reach a higher impulse pressure that can be maintained longer, which will give great efficiency. Now you just have to figure out how to reset the bolt. I would use a pneumatic piston of some sort. Removing the bolt spring would also allow you to use a lighter material for the bolt which would make the bolt more responsive and easier to maintain a level 10 anti-chop mechanism while keeping the smooth consistent operation needed for minimal velocity fluctuations.
    Except for the Automag in front, its usually the man behind the equipment that counts.

  7. #37
    To further further touch up on what's been said recently, about the gas escaping around the ball at any pressure... isn't that why every company out there makes a paint match barrel system?

    I know its an "accuracy enhancing" feature, but if you match the barrel/ paint there should be minuscule blow by on the ball.

    I also think if this were highly probable agd would have done it years ago, and called it the "fastmag"

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Fox Paintball Territory
    Posts
    777
    I like the idea of eliminating the spring and using a pneumatic ram to reset the bolt. I wanted to give it a shot but short on money and skills. Eliminating the spring should increase efficiency correct? Then use a light weight bolt as well.

  9. #39
    Ok, sit down this is gonna be a long one.

    First, I have seen the graphs, and while yes the high pressure mag was the most consistent if you notice, the other markers have a higher MOI (moment of impulse) A higher MOI means less force acting on the paintball at once and thus less stress on the shell. So while the consistency of the automag is desirable, the short MOI is not.

    The best combination (here comes the math) is found by taking tha area under the curve of a hypothetical shot at the desired velocity, finding the total work that needs to be done on the ball to bring it up to the desired velocity, and then tuning the curve so that the valve closes the moment the ball reaches then end of the control bore. After that you will have the desired MOI. Then you divide the work needed to accelerate the ball by the MOI and that gives you the momentary energy needed for the duration of the MOI. You can then convert units and find the required psi behind the ball.

    For most control bores this works out to about 45psi behind the ball for about 1.4ms. This is of course assuming a perfect ball/barrel seal. Depending on the volume size this alters the actual operating pressure of the gun (I have yet to work out a formula for this).

    As far as the valve goes, the Automag is a blow forward spool valve. Unlike poppet valves these are proven to work more smoothley and efficiently at lower pressures. I could eliminate the spring by using a three way fo feed air between the chamber and bolt lip (much like current spoolies) but that introduces reliability and durability issues. I was thinking of perhaps adding a compressible buffer in front of the spring. This means a lighter spring without damage to the gun. A lighter spring reduces the regulator effect because a lighter spring requires a lower pressure to influence the spring.

    Id rather not use a hydraulic rammer for this purpose because its use of gas defeats its own purpose. It also introduces reliability issues.

    After more math, I have decided that I will attempt to use delrin on the bolt tail. This would reduce the coefficient of friction. And also be fairly simple to change should it break. I have also settled on 7075 aluminum an a bolt material. It would take the abuse but also cut the weight way down from the steel lvl 10.

    Finally thanks for the input. Keep it coming. Ill keep updating on progress through this thread.
    Last edited by FPSmaniac152; 01-30-2013 at 09:37 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Halifax, N.S., Canada
    Posts
    7,389
    Quote Originally Posted by FPSmaniac152 View Post
    For most control bores this works out to about 45psi behind the ball for about 14ms. This is of course assuming a perfect ball/barrel seal. Depending on the volume size this alters the actual operating pressure of the gun (I have yet to work out a formula for this).
    The ball takes about 3.5ms to exit the barrel. At 14ms you would need a really long control bore.

    Quote Originally Posted by FPSmaniac152 View Post
    Id rather not use a hydraulic rammer for this purpose because its use of gas defeats its own purpose.
    The gas you use to push back the bolt when the chamber is empty would be less than the gas lost using a spring that acted as a regulator choking off the air flow, even a light spring. You could use a light spring that wouldn't be a problem, but then you would not have any real return force to work with and the bolt action would be slow resetting.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Daniel Island, SC
    Posts
    1,426
    wow just thought i was in dynamics, structural mechanics and materials science all at once. lol looking forward to seeing the end result

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by athomas View Post
    The ball takes about 3.5ms to exit the barrel. At 14ms you would need a really long control bore.

    The gas you use to push back the bolt when the chamber is empty would be less than the gas lost using a spring that acted as a regulator choking off the air flow, even a light spring. You could use a light spring that wouldn't be a problem, but then you would not have any real return force to work with and the bolt action would be slow resetting.
    Sorry, as for the MOI I forgot a decimal point, the correct number is 1.4ms, keep in mind this is for the control bore in a boring kit, not the complete barrel.

    The reason I don't like the rammer is the same reason I don't really like cockers. As soon as you need that rammer you need a 3 way valve as opposed to the current 2 way, then to maintain efficiency, you would want to use an LPR. More complications. And don't forget the rammer itself. Remember the beauty of the automag is its simplicity. I am trying to improve the gun in terms of function as well as simplicity. Adding all that stuff defeats the purpose of the automag.

    REMEMBER this is to be an improvement over the current x valve, not the absolute limit of what the automag can be pushed to do. It also needs to be relatively cheap (around $300) and producable. Adding absolutely everything makes that nearly impossible.

    Keep the suggestions coming, just keep the whole cost thing in mind when you mention things, Im not trying to make a $1000 valve.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Halifax, N.S., Canada
    Posts
    7,389
    The 1.4ms makes more sense. I know what you mean about the 3-way valve. Given that the overall chamber pressure will probably be quite low, you might be able to use one of these without an LPR which would help. It does make the system more complicated, though. I hope you do find something that works. It would be nice to have some new innovation to our existing design.

  14. #44
    I have given somt thought to doing an air spring in place of the current spring. This could be done by using a 3 way in place of the current 2 way (where it turns both on and off at the same time) and directing air to the front of the bolt after firing to recock, then maintaining this pressure until the marker is fired again. This air pressure would work as a fluid sear and once air from the 3 way was deactivated, the air in the shot chamber would propel the bolt forward.

    Only problem is, now were dealing with a totally new platform, making all existing bodies etc. unusable.

  15. #45
    Your argument about MOI seems to directly contradict your notion of higher pressure behind the ball. You seem to have a good idea of what you are talking about but it always annoys me when people don't acknowledge when part of there argument has been defeated. First you said you wanted to go low pressure to improve efficiency. You said that higher pressure behind the ball lead to energy loss. When it was demonstrated that the Automag valve uses the same volume of air at the same pressure (or less) than it's contemporaries you dumped that argument and (in what appears to be a complete 180) switched to this notion of needing a shorter MOI. That seems to directly contradict your concept of higher pressure = loss of energy.

    Also, look at the graphs again. The time scale is different in each graph. When read using the actual figures the MOI (amusing this means the start of the curve to its peak) is almost identical across all markers tested. Between 10 and 35 with the Mag falling at 15. I don't know what unit of time this represents, only that it is uniform and contradicts your notion of MOI being longer for the Automag as shown in those graphs. If you mean the entire length of the curve, only the Angel has a shorter instance (Mag = 45, Matrix = 75, Impulse = 65, Cocker = 200!, Angel = 35).

    The only concept posited in this thread that seems to hold any water is athomas' concept of energy being wasted moving the spring forward. This seems extraordinarily marginal given that it only takes 6-8 psi to advance the bolt. The level 10 properly installed only costs 1 out of every 60 shots in efficiency. There is a data thread for that as well if you want me to dig it up for you. The real cost of the LV10 is in maximum cycle speed since it slows down a portion of the bolt stroke.

    The solutions being offered sound an awful lot like the "lets turn the mag into a cocker" stuff that used to fly around in here all the time. You are right about keeping it simple. In my experience simplicity = reliability, efficiency, ease of use. The spring is not there to regulate the pressure in the chamber behind it. It is there to assist the blow back (yes, Mags use blow back) in re-cocking the bolt. Once cocked it is the sear that holds it back, not the spring. If you don't believe me, (don't do this) cut the front of your sear off and see what happens.

    The reason for the bolt travel is to chamber the round. The internals of the power tube where designed at the length they were to accommodate that very specific travel. So the solution is not to contrive some new means to reset the bolt, but to eliminate the bolt altogether.

    ICE EPIC! lol
    http://www.zdspb.com/media/tech/animations/epic.gif

    I'm not sure that that counts since it's really just moving the "bolt" to above the ball and calling it a trap door. Since most loaders are force feed now, you could conceivably use an actual trap door that would be force closed by the blow forward and forced back open by the force feed. Just a thought.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    64
    So in the original post this whole concept is driven by the need to create a more efficient valve. Let's get back to that. How much more efficient is your goal over what the valve already gets in shots per tank. Is that goal, really worth the effort? Exactly how many more shots do we need out of a 68 4500psi tank? Is anyone willing to pay $300 for 5 percent? 10 percent? 15 percent? 20 percent? How many more shots and what is that worth seems to be the real question.
    I for one would not buy a new valve for $300 for 10 or even 15 percent. So is it even possible to get a valve to increase efficiency by 20 percent? Even then, I'm not sure I would buy it. Is there enough lost energy to reach those kinds of goals?

  17. #47
    First off, if you are using the actual pressure the gun fires at as your goal, you will have problem upon problem of making it efficient. Not saying its impossible, but LP was a by product of efficiency tuning. With our current X-valve, it only gets less shots per tank, as you cannot shoot deeper into the tank. But if you could measure exact amount of air used in each shot, I think you would find that LP/HP wont make that much difference. Second of all, GOG has basically made exactly what your wanting with the mech Ion like, Enemy. So keep in mind that shot for shot efficiency is completely different that tank usability. When I had an X-vlave Mag, I used a level 7 bolt and had very good shots per tank without modifying anything. You try and make a 200psi Mag valve and you will actually lose shot for shot efficiency in my opinion.
    I have nothing good to put here...........



  18. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandman View Post
    Is that goal, really worth the effort?
    Some people pay to shave grams off of their ego's, what's a little effort here or there?

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Beaumont,Tx.
    Posts
    1,010
    As Forest Gump said " I am not a smart man" and I'm not going to pretend I understand half of what has been said here. With that said would there be a way to harness the wasted air into reseting the bolt instead of losing it or does it do this already ? Dont they use this function in some real automatic weapons to reset the bolt?....be gentle....
    Last edited by Flatliner333; 01-31-2013 at 04:54 PM.

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Flatliner333 View Post
    As Forest Gump said " I am not a smart man" and I'm not going to pretend I understand half of what has been said here. With that said would there be a way to harness the wasted air into reseting the bolt instead of losing it or does it do this already ? Dont they use this function in some real automatic weapons to reset the bolt?....be gentle....
    This is true, but the pressures involvea are much greater in real firearms, in a paintball gun, while theoretically possible, it is impractical.

  21. #51
    Its very ironic somebody brought up an ion in this thread, I was going to say build a valve out of two different marker designs... the ion/mag, and drop it in.... but didn't want to sound like a ratard... thanks for somebody bringing it in here first...

    If you have access to all this equipment to build parts, why not bring back something that's long lost and people want... like a barrel back that accepts UL or freak tips.... since they are far and few between, or threaded adapters since those have gone away, 15* asa... I could go on and on about what people post in wtb ads here, but they are obsolete and nobody wants to part with them...

    There's a money maker, and don't get all jazzy and have a front grip that costs as much as a decent gun. People don't have that scratch anymore.. well I don't, my $6 eBay grip is doing just fine....

    Just sayin, your going down a road that's a dead end. Unless its for personal satisfaction

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Cokrkilr View Post
    Its very ironic somebody brought up an ion in this thread, I was going to say build a valve out of two different marker designs... the ion/mag, and drop it in.... but didn't want to sound like a ratard... thanks for somebody bringing it in here first...

    If you have access to all this equipment to build parts, why not bring back something that's long lost and people want... like a barrel back that accepts UL or freak tips.... since they are far and few between, or threaded adapters since those have gone away, 15* asa... I could go on and on about what people post in wtb ads here, but they are obsolete and nobody wants to part with them...

    There's a money maker, and don't get all jazzy and have a front grip that costs as much as a decent gun. People don't have that scratch anymore.. well I don't, my $6 eBay grip is doing just fine....

    Just sayin, your going down a road that's a dead end. Unless its for personal satisfaction
    Btw. Pretty sure Doc Nickel still make 15* Asa for AM rails as well as twist lock to AC adapters.

    As for a marker using excess air to reset the bolt, Tippmanns do this. They also use the excess blowback to power Cyclone hoppers as well.

  23. #53
    Speaking of. Where can I find a 15* foregrip,nth at wont cost as much as a new barrel.

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by OPBN View Post
    Btw. Pretty sure Doc Nickel still make 15* Asa for AM rails as well as twist lock to AC adapters.

    As for a marker using excess air to reset the bolt, Tippmanns do this. They also use the excess blowback to power Cyclone hoppers as well.
    Well they really do not use excess blowback air, they are designed to use air directed out of the valve specifically for those applications.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Shane-O-Mac View Post
    Well they really do not use excess blowback air, they are designed to use air directed out of the valve specifically for those applications.
    They use excess air. I guess it could be debated whether it would blow back or forward if it weren't directed sideways to power the cyclone.

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by OPBN View Post
    They use excess air. I guess it could be debated whether it would blow back or forward if it weren't directed sideways to power the cyclone.
    Let me separate the two.

    The hammer is blown back after firing by design, not from excess air. The valve is designed to release some of the firing air to blow the hammer back so it can latch with the sear. You can plug the valves holes and stop the blow back air to make a pump Tippmann 98 or whatever.

    The cyclone ram does use air from the same portion. So maybe it is excess, but all that air must go somewhere else if there isnt a cyclone ram, otherwise the hammer would have resistance when the spring moves the hammer forward.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    the issue you guys are all circling around is that PV=E pressure times volume equal energy in the case of expanding gases.

    so fundamentally the OP is irreverent, once could just compensate for pressure with volume. but we live in the real world with real constraints on our our designs.

    1. packaging, need to a reasonable sized gun
    2. speed, gun has to cycle at reasonable speed
    3. hard to get compressed air above a certain pressure, and the safety of its use is risky

    these three constrains put us in the sub 1000 psi category more or less.

    so why do some guns get better efficiency then others, not at all in correlation to there operating pressures or internal volumes?

    two big reasons:

    BECAUSE THE EFFICIENCY IN EXPANSION MATTERS

    preventing pre expansion is your goal here. this is when you waste energy expanding the power pulse, before it gets to the ball. you would love nothing more then to put as much pressure as possible as close to the ball as possible, with as little flow restriction as possible to prevent wasting energy before you even put the paintball

    having smooth and loss free expansion is also key. this gets more into fluid dynamics, and such, but suffice to say, flow path and restrictions matter here.

    BECAUSE THE VALVE DYNAMICS MATTER

    most guns, the valve of the gun is open for a long time after the paintball is gone, or long after they need to be open. ALWAYS BE CLOSING, good efficiency comes from re-corking the valve the millisecond it being open is no longer useful for the paintball. closing off the valve chamber is a stop gap at best here, as you will still see efficiency gains in over-dwelled spool valves because any pressure you can keep in the valve chamber, above gauge, is useful energy. no sense wasting it. always be closing ... always have a closing force on the valve ... always. this is why guns like the G3/4/5 have terrible efficiency, no closing force.

    valve resolution matters as well. by this i mean you would ideally love your valve to go from closed and sealed to 100% open, in zero time. this is part of the above point, the pre expantion issue. this is the primary reason why poppits tend to be more efficient then spools, they strike the valve open, very very fast, gives you a very sharp pressure spike, which is good for efficiency. spool valves tend to be slower opening, which more wooshes the paintball, and this again, causes pre expansion issues in the barrel.


    now, you might be going "cockerpunk, i thought you didn't want a big spike or dramatic spike in pressure, it will break paintballs, cause kick, makes the gun loud etc etc etc"

    maybe so, but such are the trade-offs of design.
    loose cars and fast women

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    the issue you guys are all circling around is that PV=E pressure times volume equal energy in the case of expanding gases.

    so fundamentally the OP is irreverent, once could just compensate for pressure with volume. but we live in the real world with real constraints on our our designs.

    1. packaging, need to a reasonable sized gun
    2. speed, gun has to cycle at reasonable speed
    3. hard to get compressed air above a certain pressure, and the safety of its use is risky
    I still want to see a big, slow marker that is the ultimate in efficiency.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Halifax, N.S., Canada
    Posts
    7,389
    Cockerpunk summed it up nicely.

    Its all a matter of what you are willing to give up to achieve your goal. Small size, speed, efficiency, gentleness, weight, low pressure. Pick any three or possibly 4, but you'll be hard pressed to get all 6 in the same package.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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