Wicked Air Sportz: Turbo Rev

[Miscue]

From http://www.wickedairsportz.com

According to Warped Air Sportz -
"So how does it work?

The TurboRev circuit board uses the <B>latest state-of-the-art microprocessor with artificial intelligence software.</B> Unlike the standard Viewloader circuitry, there is no startup delay on the first missing ball. The TurboRev board immediately activates the hopper's motor and starts feeding! As the balls fall, <B>the TurboRev's computer monitors the feed rate and adjusts the agitator motor's speed, torque, and spin duration to increase the feed rate to the maximum possible</B> given the design of the Revolution hopper!"

<IMG SRC="../~Miscue/turborev.jpg">

Now, I'm looking at this picture of the TurboRev Board. I see some capacitors, a diode, a switch, some other stuff, and a PIC 12C508A microcontroller. I'm still looking for the "latest state-of-the-art microprocessor with artificial intelligence software," that's supposed to be on there.

<B>What is the PIC 12C508A Microcontroller?</B>
It is a $4 8-pin, 8 bit CMOS microcontroller.

<A HREF="http://www.microchip.com/download/lit/pline/picmicro/families/12c5xx/40139e.pdf">Full PIC 12C508A Chip Spec.</A>

The 12C508A has 33 single word instructions, 512 words of program memory and 25 bytes of data RAM. Out of these 33 instructions, the ability to multiply or divide numbers is not present. If you want the chip to calculate 3x3=9, you can't without using repeated addition. Say you decided to use repeated addition (or subtraction if you wanted to divide), you would need some kind of repetition instruction - like 'loop.' Guess what? It's not built in, you have to make it using branching instructions.

Ok, so let's say you do this - you get to use their bit test instruction that either goes to the <B>next</B> instruction or <B>skips</B> it. Typically, the <B>next</B> instruction would be the unconditional GOTO instruction, you would want to <B>skip</B> this if you didn't want it to branch to some other part of the program. PITA PITA PITA!! Mind you, you are doing this with a severely limited number of registers - having to pass stuff around in memory is inevitable. It's kind of like having 30 people at a dinner table for 6 with 1 fork to share among them.

So basically... in order to multiply two arbitrary numbers together, I roughly estimate it to be maybe a conservative 30+ instruction process - based from my experience with other instruction sets. Lets say you wanted to simply multiply a list of numbers together - maybe 50+ instructions.

Remember, this chip only has room for 512 instructions. With this in mind - it makes you wonder where they put the <B>"artificial intelligence software."</B>

<B>"...the TurboRev's computer monitors the feed rate and adjusts the agitator motor's speed, torque, and spin duration to increase the feed rate to the maximum possible..."</B>

Now, these buzz words: speed, torque, spin duration, maximum possible - make me think of rotational kinematics, calculus, and statistical analysis. This also makes me think about what kind of numbers we're dealing with here - numbers with stuff following the decimal place. Guess what? The 12C508A does not deal with floating point numbers, only integers (whole numbers). Ok, let's say you were to give it the ability to process floating point numbers by using a scheme to represent them with integers.

Well, I actually wrote a program like this on the x86. It was a big pain. Nobody should ever have to do this unless they are being punished for lechery or given an exorbitant amount of money. Here's what such a program looks like:

<A HREF="../~Miscue/ieee.txt">IEEE addition</A>
(This isn't one of mine, I can't find it)

You think this is big for just adding two numbers? This was done with the powerful Intel x86 instruction set. It would be ridiculously HUGE... did I mention <B>HUGE?</B> using the 12C508A's instruction set.

Let's assume their hardware could actually do what they claim. They would need to have collected data to program formulas based from the data into the chip for max output. I don't see them showing any normal distribution curves, probability density function graphs, Poisson distributions... or anything. All they have is a <B>SINGLE</B> trial in which they mention average feed rates. Seems to me that they produced numbers <B>AFTER</B> the board was made, and did <B>NOTHING</B> before it was made.

Now, these are RANDOM, not CONSTANT averages. You can't make any conclusions until you've made a large number of trials and your RANDOM averages have stabilized.

And, averages can be very misleading - other data is necessary to get a picture of what's going on. For instance: Say we have Village A with average income of $7,000/year... Village B with $10,000/year. With this information, can you say that Village B is better off than Village A? What if ONE guy in Village B is making all the money while everyone else is making next to nothing? See the problem? You need an idea of what the individual case looks like.

In terms of feeding balls, the individual case... average time between individual balls (among other things) is much more interesting and revealing than the average feed rates they calculated.

Basically, how they have gone about it is NOT how you conduct a proper statistical analysis.

The chip was "state-of-the-art" some time last century, claiming it has "artificial intelligence software" is a farce, it cannot process anything as complicated as was suggested, and unless they are keeping it a secret - they lack a proper statistical analysis to even begin to calculate these things even if the hardware had the ability to do so. I think what's going on is that WAS is recklessly throwing around and misusing technical terminology.

I think that they can claim this: The TurboRev starts and stops at particular times for particular durations that helps to feed balls better. Does it work a little better than the standard revy? I wouldn't be surprised and do not doubt it. Does it work the way they say it does? <B>No.</B>

Here's another question: Since when does a revy need alien technology to put a round ball into a tube?

Rocket Scientists? Bah. How about BS Artists.

-Brian Workman (Miscue)

[hitech]

I'm glad to see that you still had that (or found it). That was one of the best written posts I have ever read. Very well done. :D

[Miscue]

I didn't have it. I spent over an hour rewriting it. :) But I think I did a better job this time.

[angelKiller16]

wow, you are very good at these things. I was wondering why a loader had to be so smart to put a ball in a tube in the first place but you said it. You would be extremely usfull in my Computer VB II class I am taking.

[Miscue]

Humm, I just looked at the Equalizer board.

"The Equalizer uses the latest state-of-the-art microprocessor with artificial intelligence software to automatically adapt to the feed rate."

Sound familiar? :)

[Oregon_pb_]

the turbo rev was the one of the worst loaders invented, ever. It does beat a VL 200, thats about it. The battery consumtion on it is way more than the Revolution, and it doesn't feed noticably quicker.

[cledford]

Miscue,

Right about the time you called him on the AI in the turbo Rev - he realized that the AI for dwell wasn't needed after all in the the Equalizer and "took it out."

It was in the deleted thread.

-Calvin

[314159]

as far as multiplication, and division, even though there are not instructions built into the pic to implement them, you can still use bit banging to implement them (adding the features in software)

multiplication isn't too bad
;Clear all files
Multi MOVLW 0D ;0D = thirteen
MOVWF 0D ;0D = 1st count file
X0 DECFSZ 0D ;DECrement the count file
GOTO X1
RETLW 00 ;The multiplication is done
X1 MOVLW 22h ;22h = 34
MOVWF 0E,1 ;Put 22h into file 0E
X2 DECFSZ 0E ;DEC 2nd count file
GOTO X3
GOTO X0
X3 INCF 16h ;INC units file
MOVLW 0A ;Put ten in W
XORWF 16h,0 ;Is file 16h = ten?
BTFSS 03,2 ;Test the Zero flag
GOTO X2 ;No. Go to X2
CLRF 16h ;Yes. Clear file 16h
INCF 17h ;INC ten's file
MOVLW 0A ;Put ten in W
XORWF 17h ;Is file 17h = ten?
BTFSS 03,2 ;Test the Zero flag
GOTO X2 ;No. Go to X2
CLRF 17h ;Yes.
INCF 18h ;INC hundreds file
MOVLW 0A ;Put ten in W
XORWF 18h,0 ;Is file 16h = ten?
BTFSS 03,2 ;Test the Zero flag
GOTO X2 ;No. Go to X2
CLRF 18h ;Yes. Clear file 16h
INCF 19h ;INC thousands file
GOTO X2 ;Go to X2

"multiplication can be handled as sucessive additions, and division can be handled as sucessive subtractions"

http://talking-electronics.tripod.com/PIC-Theory/1-Pop-PIC-Theory-Page11.html

i don't see where you would have to multiply to do anything that the turborev advertises. next, my thoughts into how this thing works. first let me make some declerations.

1)the loader will have a max capacity of about 180 rounds.
2)you can get a pretty good idea of the amount of paint in the hopper by decrementing a running total from 180.
3)you can reliably tell when the amount of paint in the hopper is getting low, and can roughly tell how low by measuing the increasing duration of time of the lack of a ball in front of the eye.
4)when ever the hopper goes from low, to full, it has been reloaded, and reset the running total to 180.

all you would have to do now is to have a lookup table with values of how fast to spin the paddle when a given amount of balls remain, do the math before hand to calculate the most advantageous speed to spin the padle at. these values can be easily accessed by doing a computed jump (loading the address of the table into the working regester, and adding the position of the table you want to jump to, and moving the result to the program counter.

i am not saying that this is how they made the turborev board, but their claims are very possible.... (i have never used or seen one of their loaders, so they may indeed suck, not worked as claimed...)

[Miscue]

Well, thanks for copy/pasting that... it's nice to see that my estimate of approx 30 instructions was pretty darn close.

My comments on their lack of publicized research and a statistical analysis besides their hokey bps table was in anticipation of the mentioning of a look-up table which would be based upon results stemming from such an analysis... which I believe I mentioned in some form in the deleted thread on PBN but decided to omit this time because it would provide unnecessary precision in making my point clear.

<B>"maximum possible"</B>

"Maximum possible" is a pretty strong term. This tells me that nothing can surpass it. Using a look-up table, they are limited to discrete values stored in a small, limited number of memory spaces, missing intermediate values. I would argue that a board capable of real-time calculation, limited only by the precision allowed by memory could at least match and possibly exceed their board's max output. But like I said, I don't see why a revy needs 'alien-technology' in the first place. :)

<B>"artificial intelligence software"</B>

I've made it clear that the chip cannot make calculations on its own. In the case of a look-up table, the chip makes trivial decisions in a mechanical manner. If this is AI, then I claim my microwave oven to also have AI software. It has different settings for different foods, providing a predetermined amount of cooking power for each situation.

For "rocket scientists," they seem to be pretty loose with their terminology, and make a lot of claims w/o supporting evidence/data. This is the point I was after.

Here's another thought: How fast it can feed, and how fast a ball gets into the gun are two different things. How does this revy handle bursts... playing catch-up? What's the average bps of a 3-5 round burst on the gun with a ball stack? What effect does a ball stack have on long bursts? From all indications, it was "designed" to win continuous feed... dump your hopper into a guppie contests. :) Why don't they talk about these things?

[314159]

Originally posted by Miscue
In the case of a look-up table, the chip makes trivial decisions in a mechanical manner. If this is AI, then I claim my microwave oven to also have AI software.

everything a computer does can be rewritten as a yes or no question. i read this article once, it focused on if ai was inteligent, or just good programming.

(note: i haven't tried the turbo rev)

[314159]

2)if you don't start with a full hopper, or if you don't reload with a full hopper no harm done. you could also alter the objective of the program from a couple posts up, program it to keep an eye out for the eye to start getting longer than average delays. if the delay is longer than average, then the paddle is spinning to fast and flicking the balls around so that they will not settle in the feed neck. and slow down the speed of the paddle. this would be more tollerant to errors than the first idea of keeping a running count.

3)you don't have to store the lookup table in the ram, you can store that in program memory, you have to take up 1 ram location for the value that is fetched from the table. and i ram location to keep the running total. 23 bytes left.

4)then the motor encounters resistance and you shorten the life of the motor in the revvy ;).

to get rid of the random feed rate kick in the pants, you could do the check on 5 sequential times that the eye is not reading a ball. if they are over the programmed threshold, preform XXXX action.

it is possible to tell when the hopper is reloaded from a low hopper, the feed time would decrease. (have you ever noticed the noise your revvy makes when it gets low, the motor spins longer than average. this can be measured by the microcontroller, as the time the eye dosen't see a ball. when it is over a certan threshold, it could set the hopper verry low flag or something) when more paintballs were dumped in, the revvy would stop making the noise it does when it gets low (measurable on the eye). (this might better yet, lead to a low hopper led).

additional assumption, if more than x # of rounds are fired without the hopper getting low, it can be assumed that the hopper was topped off, and the counter can be reset to something like 100 or 120. (better yet, put a sensor on the hopper door)


i think that it is possible with good programming to do what they say. (note: i do not know if they use good programming, their product may indeed suck, or not suck), (personal opinion: spend a couple more bucks and get a halo b if u need the feed rate)

[Miscue]

Originally posted by 314159

1)the loader will have a max capacity of about 180 rounds.
2)you can get a pretty good idea of the amount of paint in the hopper by decrementing a running total from 180.
3)you can reliably tell when the amount of paint in the hopper is getting low, and can roughly tell how low by measuing the increasing duration of time of the lack of a ball in front of the eye.
4)when ever the hopper goes from low, to full, it has been reloaded, and reset the running total to 180.


What happens when you reload. What happens if you don't start with a full hopper? Assumptions...
You got words 0-255 to store both your main program and all your table information. The remaining 256 words are for sub-routines. You want a look up table, you wanna keep track of stuff, and have this really cool program that can do it all? Where's all this stuff going to go?

What about when the hopper is full and the balls don't have much room to be agitated? What happens when it randomly feeds quickly/slowly? Does it know when you reload?

I can guarantee you that the TurboRev does not and/or cannot do these things... let alone is there a need for this in the first place.

[314159]

Originally posted by Miscue
You got words 0-255 to store both your main program and all your table information. The remaining 256 words are for sub-routines. You want a look up table, you wanna keep track of stuff,

the reason that this is said, is that the instructions can move 8 bits at a time. just dealing with the 8 least significant digits of the program counter limits you to within the first 256 memory locations. if you add a couple lines of code, you can get around this limitation by writing to the high bites of the program counter


Originally posted by Miscue
What about when the hopper is full and the balls don't have much room to be agitated? What happens when it randomly feeds quickly/slowly? Does it know when you reload?

I can guarantee you that the TurboRev does not and/or cannot do these things... let alone is there a need for this in the first place.

it all has to do with how creative your programming is, i have an electronic board running on a pic, about 250 words of memory (not exactly a byte, a little longer) and a couple bytes of ram. this is with 5 16 bit timing variables, and other bells and whistles. assembly language can be extremly efficent.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by 314159
2)...if the delay is longer than average, then...

Then you can subtract 30 from 512... just to be able to divide... let alone produce an average. Delay? So now it must also keep track of time... something extra = more code.



4)then the motor encounters resistance and you shorten the life of the motor in the revvy ;).

Subtract available instructions from your subroutine section to fit the routine that evaluates motor resistance. Subtract available instructions from the main section to run an ongoing loop that continually calls the motor resistance subroutine.




to get rid of the random feed rate kick in the pants, you could do the check on 5 sequential times that the eye is not reading a ball. if they are over the programmed threshold, preform XXXX action.

This thing runs at 4Mhz right? Add additional code to check the ball every x clock cycles, every x ticks off the RTC, or whatever scheme you have in mind. Bottom line = more code.



it is possible to tell when the hopper is reloaded from a low hopper, the feed time would decrease. (have you ever noticed the noise your revvy makes when it gets low, the motor spins longer than average. this can be measured by the microcontroller, as the time the eye dosen't see a ball. when it is over a certan threshold, it could set the hopper verry low flag or something) when more paintballs were dumped in, the revvy would stop making the noise it does when it gets low (measurable on the eye). (this might better yet, lead to a low hopper led).


Averages, thresholds, etc... lots of code.




additional assumption, if more than x # of rounds are fired without the hopper getting low, it can be assumed that the hopper was topped off, and the counter can be reset to something like 100 or 120. (better yet, put a sensor on the hopper door)

Um... ok. Add what, 150 lines of code to do this?



i think that it is possible with good programming to do what they say.

Agreed! But not with that chip. What you would need is a magician... not a programmer.

[314159]

at 4mhz the pic can operate 1 million instruction cycles per second, all instructions take 1 instruction cycle extept thoes that write to the program counter.


"4)then the motor encounters resistance and you shorten the life of the motor in the revvy ." is not electrical resistance, it is resistance on the paddle from going around hitting the balls.

implementing a rtc on a pic is not that bad. you just configure a timer to overflow every 100th of a second. when that timer overflows, it triggers an interupt. you stick all your code in the interupt handiler (< than about 10,000 processor cycles) and then go into a endless loop, something like "loop goto loop" and then the main code is stepped through every 100th of a second.

the way i am thinking of you would not need to multiply and divide in the program, just testing if variables fall into certain catagoies, and act accordingly. a stupid program, but a lot less intensive than calcuating on the fly.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by 314159


the reason that this is said, is that the instructions can move 8 bits at a time. just dealing with the 8 least significant digits of the program counter limits you to within the first 256 memory locations. if you add a couple lines of code, you can get around this limitation by writing to the high bites of the program counter

Ok, so you manipulate the PC register to get around the limitation. This does what... allows you to sacrifice space used for one thing, and give it to another... and you lose a bit from the workaround. Suppose there are no limitations and you don't need a work around... you got 512 words to do something with. You got a look-up table, you got all these things that are being monitored, it's gotta know when to spin, when to not spin, how fast... you got 512 words, 25 bytes of memory, and an instruction set that takes 30 instructions to multiply two numbers together.

And, it has to substantiate the claims of <B>"latest state-of-the-art microprocessor with artificial intelligence software"</B> and <B>"maximum possible"</B> as a reminder to what this was all about.




it all has to do with how creative your programming is, i have an electronic board running on a pic, about 250 words of memory (not exactly a byte, a little longer) and a couple bytes of ram. this is with 5 16 bit timing variables, and other bells and whistles. assembly language can be extremly efficent.

"Creative programming" leaves things up to voodoo magic. If you gave Van Gogh a crayon, and a 1" x 1" canvas... he ain't gonna come up with much.

[314159]

Originally posted by Miscue


Ok, so you manipulate the PC register to get around the limitation. This does what... allows you to sacrifice space used for one thing, and give it to another... and you lose a bit from the workaround. Suppose there are no limitations and you don't need a work around...

movlw HIGH TableStart ;setup PCLATH for the table
addwf TableOff + 1, w
movwf PCLATH
movlw TableStart & 0x0FF ;figure out the offset
addwf TableOff,w
btfsc STATUS, C ; if necessary, increment pclath
incf PCLATCH, f ; goto the correct 256 address page
movwf PCL ; update the pc
TableStart ;table data start

8 instruction cycles, that is not bad, and there's the code to do it, you might call it a workaround, but it works, and it works raithe well.



Originally posted by Miscue
Great. The chip in question has 25 bytes of memory, and 512 words of program space. "Creative programming" leaves things up to voodoo magic. If you gave Van Gogh a crayon, and a 1" x 1" canvas... he ain't gonna come up with much.

*shrug* a comermative postage stamp???

[Miscue]

The size of the work around is not important... my point was that work-around/no work-around... doesn't matter.

"Suppose there are no limitations and you don't need a work around... you got 512 words to do something with. You got a look-up table, you got all these things that are being monitored, it's gotta know when to spin, when to not spin, how fast... you got 512 words, 25 bytes of memory, and an instruction set that takes 30 instructions to multiply two numbers together."

[Miscue]

BTW, this is the most fun I've had in a thread in a long time. :)

/me shakes hands with 314159

Thanks for being a great sport!

[314159]

this almost reminds me of what this one engineer told me, "the secret of beeing a good engineer is how many tricks you can pull". kinda makes it sound like beeing a cheap hooker.

bottom line, i think that it is possible. call it a hunch, but i don't think that they programmed it that well. i would like to see someone test one, or i might go foot the bill for one because i am curieous now.

miscue, are you going to be at shatnerball?

[Miscue]

You're right... it's hard to say it's impossible with 100% certainty until people try to do it and finally give up after exhausting all approaches. But if this board is a counter-example, I will buy that board... put my TurboRevy on a plaque... and have a gold plate engraved with: "This is paintball's greatest piece of engineering, but it still can't outfeed a HALO." :)

I'd LOVE to make it to Shatnerball... but I can barely afford a tank of gas. :) Just a poor college kid.

Boo hoo. Hehehe.

[DarkPhoenix]

I admit Warped Air Sportz' sales tactics are questionable at best but in a test conducted by Warpig, the only other hopper that was able to beat out a Turbo Rev board equipped revy was a revy on a warp feed, I believe. I have both the x-board and the Turbo Rev, and I have found the turbo rev to have more advantages than the x-board, I notice only very little difference between the two's operation, though.

[314159]

Originally posted by Miscue
Just a poor college kid. Hehehe.

me too, just going cause it is local. your thread turned out real nice. maby next time i will fall on your side of the issue, till next time.

[314159]

i noticed that on the x board they pulled out the 12 volt regulator, so it would appear that they are running the motor off of the full 18 volts from the batteries, maby this is what the preformance increase in the x board is linked to. i suppose it could always be that cute little pic 12c508a too.

[CenterFire]

About the methodology of the TurboRev:

I believe that it is supposed to calculate how fast you are shooting (according to the eye) and adjust motor speed based on that. Not sure what this will mean to you guys who know the specs on the chip and such, but I just thought I would mention it.


EDIT - From WAS on their boards:

"The TurboRev has custom computer logic that determines the optimal motor speed and torque based on how fast the balls are being allowed to fall (which is how fast you are shooting)."

[Miscue]

Well, looking at the TurboRev board... I don't believe it has the hardware to adjust power/speed... just turns on and off. I'm not an EEG dude, so not sure. Anyone know?

[314159]

here's the datasheet for the pic on the turborev board (same pic that is on the x board) http://www.microchip.com/download/lit/suppdoc/errata/80023b.pdf

the processor does have the capability of controlling the speed of the motor by rapidily turning it on and off. the motor itself would not stop moving... this is just another trick to controll how much power the motor gets.

[Miscue]

Humm... that's what I figured.

So... how is <B>"torque"</B> adjusted then? Would have to adjust the amps...

[Vegeta]

Oh man this is jsut so awesome! JOOEWWWWW!
I love it when Cue breaks out the tech stuff.

[Butterfingers]

Originally posted by DarkPhoenix
I admit Warped Air Sportz' sales tactics are questionable at best but in a test conducted by Warpig, the only other hopper that was able to beat out a Turbo Rev board equipped revy was a revy on a warp feed, I believe. I have both the x-board and the Turbo Rev, and I have found the turbo rev to have more advantages than the x-board, I notice only very little difference between the two's operation, though.

The increase in feed rate could ALONE be attributed to the "WAS modified" Vortex Impeller that was in the revy.

I have a vorex impeller in my gutted revy, paralelly hooked to my warp motor, even at 9 volts the feed rate exceeds that of a standard 12 volt revy.

[Vegeta]

Lets talk about this controll of 'Torque'. Adjusting the torque of the motor using amperage/voltage variations? No... won't work. Thin about it. The rev motor spins at one speed, but that speed could be controlled by varying amperage/voltage. BUT. Speed and torque are two VERY diffrent speed. I don't care if a motor is spinning a wheel at a high RPM, if it doesn't have force (torque) behind it, it is not goign to propell the car. TheRev board it like a servo. it is a motor and has gears to change the high speed and low torque of hte electric motor down to a lower speed yet higher torque that is needed. The WAS turbo rev board CANNOT effectively change torque by just increasing the load going to motor. They wopuld haev to have to change gear ratios in the rev motor to control things. Notice I said effectively.

And also, I donnot thing they can be changing amperage going to the motor from the battery using that chip. Not on that board. Someone who knows a bit more on how it operates might know but I don't think it would be possible.

[314159]

http://www.rcdesign.ru/eng/electronics/esc/

this link is of a motor speed controller using the pic12c509 (identical to the pic12c508 except for a little more ram and rom).

[Vegeta]

Im referring to Torque as hte force in hte rotation of the motor. More torque means more power to move heavier things. Less torque would mean that the revvy impeller would not be strong enough to jostle any paint around, especially on a full hopper, no matter what speed.

The question is- can that ESC controll torque? Lowering hte speed of the motor will not nessecarily increase torque... will it?

[314159]

in an electric motor, lowering the speed will not increase the torque.

as far as controlling the speed of a motor by sending it a pulsed waveform. the one in the link above operates at 3khz, this either turns the motor completley on, or completley off.

if the motor was on 100% duty cycle. as an example it would have the same torque as when the motor is on at a 50% duty cycle (when the motor is operational) and 0 torque when the motor is inoperational. if you take the speed that the motor is fed the on/off signal down to an extreme, let's say 4 hertz. it becomes easier to see that the paddle has the same torque behind it when it is operational when it is being rapidly being turned on/off as when it is operational 100%.

so torque is not an issue.

[nerobro]

well if you're changing the speed the motor is turning you're also changing the torque it's producing. the lower the rpm an electric motor turns the higher it's torque, peaking at 0. Also by turning the motor on and off you're effectively lowering the torque by having the motor off a portion of the time.

[314159]

you could easily average it and get and average torque.... but when the motor is on, there is the same voltage/current/power going through the motor for that instant that it is on (operating at a reduced duty cycle), to when it is operating at a 100% duty cycle. so the motor would output the same torque at that instant.

by varrying the duty cycle of the motor, you can controll the speed, having it produce the same torque (while the motor is moving).

if you had something that would require 15 units of torque to move, and the motor produced 20 units of torque when it was on, and it operated at a 50% duty cycle. the mean average would decieve you. because it would be able to be moved.

[Vegeta]

...Have wefound out if the WAS Turbo rev board really does all this or is that just more false advertising?

I am still cracking up everytime I read that tidbit about hte 'Artificial Intellegence software' that this thing is supposed to have.

[nerobro]

I think we can safely say that their claims are incorrect. Controling a motor at 4mhz is bad for the motor. there is no way for it to properly determing the rate of fire youre' shooting, at least with any kind of reliabilty.

[314159]

4mhz = the clock speed (speed of internal oscilator, can run up to this speed)

1mhz = the instruction speed (1/4 of clock speed)

you can switch on/off the motor at whatever frequency you want within reason



almost institaneous rate of fire = 1 / (the difference of the time between the tailing edge of 2 balls)

the tailing edge of 2 balls = the moment in which the eye goes from blocked, to open

[nerobro]

1mhz of instructions are very quickly eaten up if you're trying to find BPS, and send the proper control impulses to the motor ;-)

[manike]

I thought you guys might be interested in some quotes for the last time I clashed with WAS over the turbo rev. The following quotes come from the thread http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16097


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
The artificial intelligence software uses an adaptive algorithm. This means that the feed rate will increase or decrease based on the time frame between balls.

Your example shows that there will be delays caused by the bolt opening/closing. What most people can not comprehend is that the TurboRev actually syncronizes the feeding to match the delay. This keeps the flow of balls steady, and gravity working. :)

This made me laugh my cotton socks off. There is no way a system which looks at where a ball is at the top of the feed tube can synchronise the dropping of a ball with when the breech is open or shut. Especially since it is using a rotating paddle to randomly knock balls towards the feed hole. To think it could 'synchronise' even hitting a ball at the right time to feed it, is laughable.

He tried to explain a form of SHM that would make balls at the bottom of a stack fall faster due to impacts at the top of the stack, timed to co-incide with when the breech was open... To quote a good friend of mine, who will remain nameless unless he wishes otherwise, the chances of that happening are like a Baseball player being blindfolded and expected to hit a home run from a fast ball pitched at him from anywhere out of the crowd... :D

You will notice that WAS once again tried to talk about something he knew nothing about (The Warpfeed), and tried to discredit my maths (he was wrong again) and you can see my reply to which he never responded again... I wonder why? :D

He also stated that the algorythm required at least 16 and no more than 32 shots (I think those numbers are right but it's from my memory) to be fired for it to work out how to feed properly... so what happens if the string you fire is shorter than 16 or longer than 32? Apparently it fixes what it does at one state after 32 shots fired... what happens if you don't fire consistently over those 16-32 shots (and lets face it unless you are in FA you won't...)

You might also enjoy this thread on the subject...

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21281

wow this was nearly a year ago that I wrote all that but it's familiar huh?

I came to the conclusion back then that this guy was full of hype and a BS artist!

manike

[Pand0ra]

The torque is very simple to adjust when you deal with permanent magnet DC motors.

You've simply to limit the current in the motor.
The lower the current, the lower the torque will be.
The maximum speed of the motor is determined by the voltage

If you compare two motors of the same type and size, but with different windings, you'll see the one with the lower internal resistance will have the highest torque.
The drawback is in general a loss in speed.

Other kinds of DC motors use a winding for the stator.
In this case the current in the stator determines the torque.


Back to the board now...

First of all I don't see a real need of torque control, except to avoid the destruction of components or gears in case of the rotor gets stuck.

I don't see how they could implement it here.
To implement a torque control, you need some kind of feedback.
The PIC needs an amplifier to drive the motor (in this case a transistor, probably a MosFet).
Hence there is no feedback at this level.

You can always put a shunt in series with the motor to measure the current. The problem is you need at least an amplifier to increase the amplitude of the feedback (the value of the shunt is very low, the tension measured also).
There's no A/D converter either in the PIC.
This could be solved with the usage of a VCO, to create a frequency proportional to the tension. Not implemented on the board from what I see (and it's quite hard to implement on the PIC, as the only counter is already used by the PWM probably).

I come to the conclusion there is no torque control on this board (maybe it's a consequence of the pwm control, but it's definitly not a real torque control).


Now back to the brain...

It's not possible to measure the real number of balls which leaves the loader with the gate implemented in the loader.
The reason is simple: you never now when there's no gap between two paintballs in the feed.
How could a normal barrier detects a movement of the paintball if the gate is always cut? It's impossible.

The measure is inherently false. As a consequence, whatever the processing done in the PIC, the result is incorrect.
I don't see any reasons to do heavy processing on this kind of datas...


The story would be totally different if there was an intellifeed to the hopper (is there one?).
In this case the pic could increase the speed of the motor till there's no more big gaps between the paintballs.
This would result in a decrease of the power consumption, and increase the life of the battery.

Just my 0,02 Euros :)

@++

[billmi]

Originally posted by Miscue
Well, looking at the TurboRev board... I don't believe it has the hardware to adjust power/speed... just turns on and off. I'm not an EEG dude, so not sure. Anyone know?

I haven't thrown it on a waveform recorder, but Jim Drew says he's pulse code modulating the output to the servo. This makes absolute sense as the paddles appear (to me, subjectively) to spin slower than with the X-Board. I haven't noticed a change in paddle spin rates as Drew claims (hence scoping the output would be pretty revealing).

Re: the previous comment of not having a 12v reg, PCMing the output will give a lower average voltage, making the vreg unnecessary, if the PIC is controlling a transistor that can handle the full voltage (18v).

PCM is an ideal method for adjusting motor speed as opposed to changing voltage, because you get more torque at lower speeds.

See you on the fields,
-Bill Mills

[billmi]

Originally posted by Butterfingers


The increase in feed rate could ALONE be attributed to the "WAS modified" Vortex Impeller that was in the revy.


No Vortex impeller, WAS modified or otherwise was used in the test.

http://www.warpig.com/paintball/technical/loaders/lineup/index.shtml

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[billmi]

Originally posted by manike
To quote a good friend of mine, who will remain nameless unless he wishes otherwise, the chances of that happening are like a Baseball player being blindfolded and expected to hit a home run from a fast ball pitched at him from anywhere out of the crowd... :D
[/B]

You forgot the rest - that has to be done while the stadium is moving. :-)

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[Koosh]

You guys seen the interview Jim Drew did with http://www.paintballreality.com/ ? I would reccomend reading it, if you haven't, here it is cut and pasted for your pleasure!

PBREALITY: Can you explain to us a little but about the

TurboRev and how it works?

JIM DREW: My definition of how it works is always disputed. There are some that

feel this technology is not possible. The results we have stated, as well as independant sources such as WARPIG, clearly show that the technology works. So those that don't have an open mind to technology, please skip this description. :)



The TurboRev uses a computer chip (more powerful than what we used to land our astronauts on the moon). This chip is programmed with routines that 'learn' patterns in the feeding and alter the motor speed and torque to achieve the best feed rate, and all in real time. By deliberately attempting to synchronize the "smacking" of the balls above

the stack in the feed tube with the cycling of the bolt, you can accelerate the balls into the breach. It is a similar concept to the desktop conversation pieces that have metal balls

suspended from strings. You pull back the first ball and release it, upon contact with the line of balls, the last ball rockets away from the rest, with the middle balls not disturbed. Its a simple idea, but the implementation is quite a feat. It took about 3 months of daily work to get the software to work properly. 3 months to write 500 bytes of code.



There is more, but I think this is the only part that pertains to this discussion...

[Jeb_Hoge]

You know what I'm waiting for, though? BLUETOOTH. "Real wireless intellifeed using Bluetooth technology!"

[pete-is-god17]

im all for you taking the this to the source and stickin it to em :):):):)

rock on all u smart dudes, rock on:cool:

[WickedAirSportz]

I'll tell you what, since the days of agitated hoppers are numbered, and Wicked Air Sportz will be releasing our own force feed hopper in the future, I would be happy to openly discuss the technology that makes the TurboRev the fastest feeding device for the Revolution.

As Bill Mills pointed out, he conducted his tests with a 1st generation TurboRev with the stock 4 blade impeller. After Bill's tests, I did change the software a little bit to help in those situations where there are fewer balls in the hopper to start with.

Now, if people would like an informative discussion about this technology, I am open to it. The technology is quite possible, and it works - I don't think Bill got a big check to lie on the Warpig results. :)

Some of the posts here are dead on the money about how it works, and others are so far off in left field. :) It seems that most of the people posting are in their youth, and are probably not very experienced with assembly language programming, or even the basic tricks you can do with the PIC micros. If you think you need multiplication or division instructions, you are thinking too high level. There are no such requirements in the TurboRev software, although lookup table pointers are certainly built in realtime (even with the limited RAM).

The concept of there never being a "gap" between two balls is wrong. Out of months worth of testing, I have only seen a few times where two balls were actually touching together (no space between) right as they passed the dead center portion of the infrared beam. Remember, the beam is modulated at a particular pattern to eliminate reflections from the balls false triggering the receiver, and to eliminate problems with ambient light.

Basically, what I would like from this discussion, at the end of course, is a public apology. When we are done, the information that I am going to give would allow others to produce a competing product. As I stated, we are looking toward the future with our new hopper (which will likely be as doubted as everything that I have ever worked on in the past). You have to ask yourself one question, if nothing else - why does the TurboRev feed faster than any other aggitated hopper in existance?

Let me know if we can have a rational convesation here. :)


Perhaps when this discussion is closed, we can move on to the Equalizer doubts.

[Butterfingers]

We are not doubting the claim that your product works. Your products usually do. Not once did we say your products DIDNT work.

However, we find it misleading that you must hype up products to make it look better than it really is.

Most of your products are doubted because you are making outrageous claims. Yes they work but not the way you describe it.

State of the art microcontroller?

Common its a $4 microcontroller. You're making it sound like this thing has the cray supercomputer in it.

I say if you dont wan't people do doubt your products don't make bogus claims, all we want to see is performance.

Look at the halo... similarily according to your standard the halo uses "space age electronics more powerful than the computer used to put the astronauts on the moon" also.

If the guys at halo made that claim we would be cynical too.

The bottom line the consumer dosent like being fed a line of crap for a product they can judge the performance of by themselves. It turns alot of us off.

[cphilip]

Yes the smoke is a bit thick. We are slaying hype here not your product. Stick to the truth and sell the snake oil to the kiddies.

[WickedAirSportz]

State of the art microcontroller?

Well, perhaps you guys should be taking your complaints up with Microchip, because they clearly list in their advertising that their processors ARE the state of the art in technology.

If your arguments are about how things are worded, well then I am sorry - that will probably not change. It's accurate, and usually taken from some other source (like the Microchip website and documentation in this case).

Buzz words are used for advertising purposes, that is how products are sold. You will find such words in our advertisements and statements, but you will not find anything that is inaccurate.

[WickedAirSportz]

We are not doubting the claim that your product works. Your products usually do. Not once did we say your products DIDNT work.

Ah, here is another point that is a bit personally irratating.

There are those that are doubting that this technology is not possible (even though the results certainly prove otherwise). Just because YOU can not create the technology, does NOT mean it can not exist. I think this is probably the biggest issue in the "are UFO's real" debate. Technology beyond our scope of thinking is certainly not possible - we are just not thinking hard enough. :)

[Xen]

Nothing you say is inacurate eh? Well gravity itself can't feed faster than 13 bps and you site claims that the turborev can feed 16 bps. Since when does an impeller become an instrument to force feed (i.e exert constant pressure on the balls) the paintballs into the breech? Seems like you trying to misslead people.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
I'll tell you what, since the days of agitated hoppers are numbered, and Wicked Air Sportz will be releasing our own force feed hopper in the future, I would be happy to openly discuss the technology that makes the TurboRev the fastest feeding device for the Revolution.

As Bill Mills pointed out, he conducted his tests with a 1st generation TurboRev with the stock 4 blade impeller. After Bill's tests, I did change the software a little bit to help in those situations where there are fewer balls in the hopper to start with.

Now, if people would like an informative discussion about this technology, I am open to it. The technology is quite possible, and it works - I don't think Bill got a big check to lie on the Warpig results. :)

Some of the posts here are dead on the money about how it works, and others are so far off in left field. :) It seems that most of the people posting are in their youth, and are probably not very experienced with assembly language programming, or even the basic tricks you can do with the PIC micros. If you think you need multiplication or division instructions, you are thinking too high level. There are no such requirements in the TurboRev software, although lookup table pointers are certainly built in realtime (even with the limited RAM).

The concept of there never being a "gap" between two balls is wrong. Out of months worth of testing, I have only seen a few times where two balls were actually touching together (no space between) right as they passed the dead center portion of the infrared beam. Remember, the beam is modulated at a particular pattern to eliminate reflections from the balls false triggering the receiver, and to eliminate problems with ambient light.

Basically, what I would like from this discussion, at the end of course, is a public apology. When we are done, the information that I am going to give would allow others to produce a competing product. As I stated, we are looking toward the future with our new hopper (which will likely be as doubted as everything that I have ever worked on in the past). You have to ask yourself one question, if nothing else - why does the TurboRev feed faster than any other aggitated hopper in existance?

Let me know if we can have a rational convesation here. :)


Perhaps when this discussion is closed, we can move on to the Equalizer doubts.

Rational Conversation? I suppose we should mimic you with conjectures and statements we have not attempted to back up in a logical fashion.

Once again, you've made comments w/o any supporting evidence/data. Your authority on the matter is self-proclaimed. You have not been able to answer the simple questions : WHY? and HOW? other than that it's because you say so.

So, some things are in left field. WHICH claims are incorrect? Support with evidence.

I do not see the necessity of an apology because the information presented: A - Has no ill-intent. B - Invites and does not inhibit counter-argument to test the validity of the claims. C - Has not been disproven by you or anyone else, and thus stands as the best flow of reasoning to base our understanding of the matter.

"It seems that most of the people posting are in their youth, and are probably not very experienced with assembly language programming, or even the basic tricks you can do with the PIC micros."

This is your response to my post I assume. Reason is timeless and undiscriminating. A logical proceeding is no less sound or less valid if born from the mind of a five year old or a sixty year old. Don't tell us what our ages are, explain why the logic is wrong.


<marquee><B>PROVE IT......PROVE IT......PROVE IT......</B></marquee>

[WickedAirSportz]

Since when does an impeller become an instrument to force feed (i.e exert constant pressure on the balls) the paintballs into the breech?

There is not constant pressure on the balls.

I will be back tomorrow to check the responses. If people would like to know how this works, and have an open mind, with an open discussion, that would be great.

Once the discussion is complete, there will be nothing left to "prove" to anyone, and the nay-sayers will probably feel a little silly. :)

[Miscue]

Show us the code, so we don't have to bother with getting a chip programmer to get it ourselves. Provide commenting on the code that shows where the chip does all the things you say it does.

[cphilip]

Well Jim heres the thing...no one here is saying your product is not better than say a VL revy. No matter how it works. We just hate to see you stoop to what we feel are gross exagertions to sell it. Thats the point here. Maybe you feel compelled to do that but around here that doesn't sit real well. We perfer honesty and technical data. Facts. If that doesn't sell then well we would rather not condone its use to do so. See?

It's nothing personal at all. It's just the general attitude we cultivate here on AO

[WickedAirSportz]

Show us the code, so we don't have to bother with getting a chip programmer to get it ourselves. Provide commenting on the code that shows where the chip does all the things you say it does.

Not a chance... I am going to do something even better. I am going to hold your hand, and walk you through the technology, make you answer the questions, and let you build one yourself. :)

BTW, I was not foolish enough to not lock the PIC chip. :)

[Butterfingers]

WAS,

The test results don't prove that the "AI technology" is possible. It just proves your loader feeds faster.

Sorry a change in the loaders logic does not consititute "AI"

Nor... is a $4 pic a state of the art microcontroller.

Perhaps we have diffrent definitions of "AI"

To me the optical eye picking up changes in feed rate and comparing it to a pre made chart does not constitute AI.

Or is it even possible given the limited capabilities of the microchip?

[Miscue]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz


There is not constant pressure on the balls.

I will be back tomorrow to check the responses. If people would like to know how this works, and have an open mind, with an open discussion, that would be great.

Once the discussion is complete, there will be nothing left to "prove" to anyone, and the nay-sayers will probably feel a little silly. :)

It's only natural to have nay-sayers. You've provided nothing to help anyone understand the why's and how's. Skepticism is only natural and you have not provided any information so that anyone can be 'correct' in their ideas on this board, w/o blindly following your claims. We don't like to blindly follow things. We want to know WHY.

Why until tomorrow? I thought you made this thing? Should be on top of your head.

Make us believe... please. So that we can have an understanding of the truth.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz


Not a chance... I am going to do something even better. I am going to hold your hand, and walk you through the technology, make you answer the questions, and let you build one yourself. :)

BTW, I was not foolish enough to not lock the PIC chip. :)

Fine then. What algorithms did you use? Pseudocode is fine. BTW, I can't build it from scratch w/o your code. And besides... A 10 year old could slap it together on a bread board w/o assistance. Your habitual inability to produce data/information is disheartening.

[Cristobal]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz


There is not constant pressure on the balls.

I will be back tomorrow to check the responses. If people would like to know how this works, and have an open mind, with an open discussion, that would be great.

Let's get this straight from the get-go then:

What is the definition of an "open mind" and "open discussion"?

In my view this suggests that parties participating will, without bias or prejudice, consider any information presented on its relative merits. Open discussion further implies there are no opinions which are automatically discounted, that no data should be excluded that has a bearing on the matter under discussion, and that no party should be intentionally miss-represent data or evade direct questioning. Finally, each participant should be treated with courtesy and respect even by those of dissenting opinions.

Edit: Wow, this thread is moving fast

[Butterfingers]

WAS,

Before you comment, If you could answer these questions to the best of your ability...

Out of all the other manufactrers out there why do you think we pick on you?

Why do you think all of your products have come into doubt as you claim?

Do you think it may have somthing to do with your marketing tactics? Perhaps your attitude towards potential customers?

If you can answer and understand the responses to these questions I will guarantee you will have a revalation.

After we find out what you think, perhaps we can reply with our answers.

[Restola]

OMG HE STILL HASN'T REALLY SAID ANYTHING

On the thread on the mainboard he says come here, you come here and he says NOTHING!

I swear to never buy ANYTHING from someone this evasive and annoying.

[Miscue]

An interesting article...

http://www.lysator.liu.se/amiga/al/guide/al102/jim_drew_good_or_bad.HTML

[WickedAirSportz]

Out of all the other manufactrers out there why do you think we pick on you?

It is because my claims are beyond the normal scope of what people have been programmed to believe as the limits of a device. Simple as that.


Why do you think all of your products have come into doubt as you claim?

Because I do not produce common place products. I seek to produce products that exceed the boundries of what is considered the maximum level. It is by no accident that these products are doubted. I want to make things that will make people feel that way... and when they get them in their hands, and the reviews are done, I was right. The money and the fame in the industries I have been involved in are truly meaningless to me. It's that look on the doubters face when they realize they were wrong that keeps me going.


Do you think it may have somthing to do with your marketing tactics? Perhaps your attitude towards potential customers?

:) My marketting tactics are the simple truth. Mix that with the product specifications, and you're bound to have a mass of nay-sayers.

I love my potential customers. :) We have implemented a lot of changes based on customer requests. This is a REAL big thing with me, and one of the main reasons why there is a communications port on the Equalizer. I want to be able to have multiple languages (a suggestion made by a customer), ability to have a custom boot up message (yet another suggestion). When you sit in the technology pit, you don't always see what would be good for your products, and our customer feedback has been incredibly valuable.

[Butterfingers]

Here are my honest answers,


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz


It is because my claims are beyond the normal scope of what people have been programmed to believe as the limits of a device. Simple as that.



Sorry to say it isnt as simple as that...

I honestly know very little about microelectronics. However your answer is not the case. Your answer to this question, at least in my mind is false. The simple fact is that you come off as a person who blows alot of smoke and that puts alot of us on the defensive. We have NO problem accepting the extraordianry. Its just the way you present it that makes us cynical. The fact that you tend to avoid questions just makes it worse. It makes people think you have somthing to hide.


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz



Because I do not produce common place products. I seek to produce products that exceed the boundries of what is considered the maximum level. It is by no accident that these products are doubted. I want to make things that will make people feel that way... and when they get them in their hands, and the reviews are done, I was right. The money and the fame in the industries I have been involved in are truly meaningless to me. It's that look on the doubters face when they realize they were wrong that keeps me going.



Actually, no. Your products are good yes... But the reason your products spark controversey is beause independently derived results differ than your stated results. 30 fps dropoff at 14 bps PUHLEZE. It would be lucky if it showed 2 fps dropoff with the stock board at that ROF. At best we can call this claim highly exaggerated. We are not attacking your technology we are attacking your claims. So far you have not proven ANY of our concerns wrong. I think you will be hard pressed to prove that the stock board is in fact the reason for dropoff. Considering cledford's methods were far superior to yours. The fact that you avoid and sidestep the aquestions does not help either. The fact that you change claims to fit your situation does not help.



Originally posted by WickedAirSportz


:) My marketting tactics are the simple truth. Mix that with the product specifications, and you're bound to have a mass of nay-sayers.

I love my potential customers. :) We have implemented a lot of changes based on customer requests. This is a REAL big thing with me, and one of the main reasons why there is a communications port on the Equalizer. I want to be able to have multiple languages (a suggestion made by a customer), ability to have a custom boot up message (yet another suggestion). When you sit in the technology pit, you don't always see what would be good for your products, and our customer feedback has been incredibly valuable.

So you dont think calling a PIC controller a state of the art microprosessor isnt exaggerating a LITTLE. How about the confirmed LIES about 30 fps of dropoff that never existed? And the confirmed LIE about how 14 bps isnt 14 bps when waveform analysis actually confirmed it was 14 bps on the dot?

We will continue to laugh harder than you ever will until you address the concers presented.

Sereously,

If you honestly beleive your answers are the "Real" reasons. You either don't understand us or you are just on a self imposed self rightous high of arrogance and ignorance.

I encourage other members to reply to these same questions honestly and accurately so WAS can see and perhaps learn the million dollar question of why...

Let me tell you a story of me...

Being a whiz kid isnt all that it is cracked up to be. Isolation from activities outside of the acedemic realm often leaves us devoid to the feelings and intentions of others. I admit to being ignorant when I was younger most notably up to my first 2 years of highschool. In 8th grade I was invited to a national science convention in brookhaven national labs and took honorable mention for my work on plant biology, I was always on the top of my class. I *thought* I was smarter than anybody else. The last 2 years of highschool my life changed. I had joined the football team. At first I thought my colleauges were just the stereotypical jocks. I always thought I was right and that they didnt understand me. The truth is I just didnt listen...

Take that as you will...

[WickedAirSportz]

But the reason your products spark controversey is beause independently derived results differ than your stated results.

One person, one gun, one set of results.

Good grief. This is a million dollar a month marker that is being sold here. Do you honestly believe that NO testing was done here, and these numbers came out of thin air? Top that off with the fact these numbers were derrived from an independant source that I would like to believe to be a bit more accurate than Cledford's numbers (no offense Cledford).

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
It is because my claims are beyond the normal scope of what people have been programmed to believe as the limits of a device. Simple as that.

I was going to say "don't be so arrogant" but I am not sure that's possible with you. The reason that a lot of us do not believe you or your claims, is because we also have skills and abilities in these areas and have the ability to think for ourselves.


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
One person, one gun, one set of results.

Which from your original claims of how you were making the equaliser is also how you were conducting your tests. And which sparked a lot of complaints in case the dropoff issues you claimed to see were just from your gun as an isolated case.


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Good grief. This is a million dollar a month marker that is being sold here. Do you honestly believe that NO testing was done here, and these numbers came out of thin air?

That's exactly what I believe. Especially since you change the numbers as people debunk your claims. I think you made something which offered an improvement and then made up numbers and hype to push it. I don't believe your numbers because there is NO PROOF whatsoever of those numbers and despite your promises to provide it you still haven't. It's vapourware.


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Top that off with the fact these numbers were derrived from an independant source that I would like to believe to be a bit more accurate than Cledford's numbers (no offense Cledford).

You had the numbers derived from an independent source? hhmm, first you claimed you did the testing, then you tried to bluff me that AGD did the testing and now you are claiming 'an independent source'? Who is that source is it Bob Long? I'm going to ask him next time I talk to him about how he tested the guns

And then you attack Cledford's numbers claiming someone elses' to be more accurate? :rolleyes: how can you do that without knowing how Cledford achieved his results?

Let me leave you with the definition of hype (no it's not WAS's marketing' :) )


hype1 Pronunciation Key (hp) Slang n.

Exaggerated or extravagant claims made especially in advertising or promotional material: “It is pure hype, a gigantic PR job” (Saturday Review).

Something deliberately misleading; a deception: “ [He] says that there isn't any energy crisis at all, that it's all a hype, to maintain outrageous profits for the oil companies” (Joel Oppenheimer).

tr.v. hyped, hyp·ing, hypes
To publicize or promote, especially by extravagant, inflated, or misleading claims: hyped the new book by sending its author on a promotional tour.

I will believe your claims on the turbo rev and equaliser when you provide proof. Once again you have typed a lot, said nothing, and prooved only that you like to be evasive. It appears from research on the net, that you were like this in other industries that you were involved in.

Instead of being evasive why not just post some proof. Until then those of us that also know what we/you are talking about will continue to show those you try and hype why they need to be careful about your products.

manike

[WickedAirSportz]

The reason that a lot of us do not believe you or your claims, is because we also have skills and abilities in these areas and have the ability to think for ourselves.

Huh? How much sense does that make? That's like saying I don't believe that time travel is possible because I have the skills to think its not.


Which from your original claims of how you were making the equaliser is also how you were conducting your tests. And which sparked a lot of complaints in case the dropoff issues you claimed to see were just from your gun as an isolated case.

What I posted was a small sample of what testing was conducted. It would be foolish to believe that only one gun was tested during the entire development period. It would be foolish to think only a dozen were tested too.

I will likely never be forthcoming with information in a competitive environment. That is not practical business sense. Give enough information to prove your point (even if there are those who don't believe it), but not enough to allow others to compete against you...


That's exactly what I believe. Especially since you change the numbers as people debunk your claims. I think you made something which offered an improvement and then made up numbers and hype to push it. I don't believe your numbers because there is NO PROOF whatsoever of those numbers and despite your promises to provide it you still haven't. It's vapourware.

Yep, you got me. I made the whole thing up. There isn't even a board... it just a piece of paper that my 4 year old colored. :)

I don't change anything, I merely provide a little more information. I believe I have provided ample proof. I sleep fine at night. :)


You had the numbers derived from an independent source? hhmm, first you claimed you did the testing, then you tried to bluff me that AGD did the testing and now you are claiming 'an independent source'? Who is that source is it Bob Long? I'm going to ask him next time I talk to him about how he tested the guns

I did do the testing... so did a LOT of others. If you think I am actually going to provide you (or anyone else) with all of the information during a product's development, you have another thing coming. Smoke and mirrors - no lies, just not telling everything. This is normal in the computer industry. :) Please do speak with Bob. He may not tell you anymore than I will, but he may tell you everything. That is of course up to him. The project is done at this point, but there will still be secrets kept about the board so that other manufacturers do not copy key elements from it.


And then you attack Cledford's numbers claiming someone elses' to be more accurate? how can you do that without knowing how Cledford achieved his results?

Cledford told me how he obtained his results in a PM. There are lots of little details like this that you are not aware of until now.


I guess my confusion is once I do provide you the holy grail of proof that you are so desperately seeking, then what?

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Huh? How much sense does that make? That's like saying I don't believe that time travel is possible because I have the skills to think its not.

LMAO, you really are an obstinant and arrogant person. You imply you are right because the only person who can understand what you are saying is yourself? What a joke.

What we are discussing is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, it's pretty simple physics and mathematics (well maybe that is rocket science in your terms and the hype you use, but it's easy enough for most to understand given a little coaching through the principles).

I'm happy enough in my understanding of these fields that I can call your hype and claims for the absolute rubbish that they are. In return you have nothing but hot air. I have no need to try and baffle the 'audience' with long words and terms in the hope they will not understand me and take what I say for granted as true, like you do. In fact although I could act that way I go out of my way to do the opposite and make it that people can understand me and the theories and physics involved. You have no plausible theory, you have no evidence, you site 'competition' as the reason you do not provide it? and you expect people who do have evidence to the contrary to believe you?

I'm waiting for you to claim cold fusion in a test tube next. :rolleyes:

Practical business sense is to be able to back up what you claim. You can not, and it appears you have quite a history of claiming things you can not back up.

When cornered you argue over semantics and act more like your 4yr old child than someone who actually has the ability to prove their claims.

You said you would provide video's of your claims, and we are still waiting for them. Have been for a long time, and I only expect to get more hot air out of you rather than the video's to back up your claims.

What happens when you come up with proof? You will get an apology from me for outrightly calling you a liar, and will be held aloft as achieveing something outside the realms of reality. Wow, you should be falling over yourself to come up with the proof! I think you are an outright liar about how the Turbo Rev works. I do not believe your theory is even remotely plausible, and you either know that and are selling hype to make money or you are crazy enough to actually believe the ridiculous hypothesis you have made.

At the moment, your refusal to provide proof, and your arrogance that we will not understand it if you did, just makes you come across as a snake oil salesman.

The king is naked and we can all see that.

manike

[manike]

Hey WAS. Here is an easy claim for you to prove for us to show you aren't full of BS. You said...


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
You just can't argue with the fact that a gun set to shoot at 18bps (in full auto) empties the hopper in a just a few seconds, without breaks, chops, or misses. This is what we are seeing with the TurboRev upgraded hopper.

I won't argue with that if you show it :D Put a turbo rev on your intimidator and empty it at 18bps in a few seconds.

I believe that was also claimed for any gun, so please also turn the ACE off and show it how it can do it without chops :)

How's that for an easy start for you? Shouldn't be too difficult for you to do should it?

manike

[WickedAirSportz]

I'll do you better than that... this test was conducted by a respected author for APG (Paul "Doc" Koch), using his Tippman Model 98 with an experimental e-bolt.

[manike]

I don't see anything yet...

A video please, not just an article with 'words' :rolleyes:

manike

[314159]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Some of the posts here are dead on the money about how it works, and others are so far off in left field.

would thoes be my posts? :)

and a reply to everyone that is saying that the picmicro microcontrollers are not state of the art. microcontrollers are reducing circuits to themselves, and input and output components, no external ram/rom/bus logic, they reduce the area and thus the cost of a pcb, making electronics cheaper.

they are powerfull because of their limits. their reduced instruction set allows them to have their instructions and data on the same word of memory. they process the instruction and data in the same processor cycle (except for instructions that write to the program counter). they do not have to wait to retrive information from a disk.

for everyone that is calling them a $4 dollar chip, i can get them for 1.58 in quanity of 1. (if you wish to buy them at $4 a chip, contact me about being your distributor ;) ) http://www.digikey.com/scripts/us/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=55575&Row=241037

i would urge a mod to do some weeding and clean up this thread a little. some people are litterly holding down the wickedairsportz guy while the other one works the gut.

i have heard of a bug that will allow you to dump the code of a pic with the protection bit set. note: you do risk ruining the pic in the process of dooing this. i read this a while ago, so if it has been fixed, or if my memory no longer serves me correctly... it involves raising vcc line of the picmicro to around +14v instead of +5v while reading the pic.

[Butterfingers]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
I'll do you better than that... this test was conducted by a respected author for APG (Paul "Doc" Koch), using his Tippman Model 98 with an experimental e-bolt.

Oh yeah... that should be really easy to verify dosent webby write for APG too... err...

[314159]

this might pertain to other pics than the 16c84, you run a good chance of DESTROYING the pic you are trying to read. one of the followup posters to this got 3 fizzles before 1 good read.

> 1. I use the PIC16 programmer from Farnell Components (part no. 459-471).
>
> 2. The standard programming software supplied is ASLPIC from Application
> Solutions Ltd.
>
> 3. Install the 16C84 into a turned pin socket with pin 14 (VDD)
> cut off. Attach a flying lead to the stub of pin 14 and
> connect this to a power supply (0V to +14V) sharing a common
> ground with the programmer.
>
> 4. Run ASLPIC.
> Insert the PIC+socket into the ZIF on the programmer board and switch
> VDD to 5V.
> From the menu set the CP configuration fuse to OFF.
> Now set VDD to VPP-0.5V (approx 13.5 volts).
> Program the configuration fuses. (Reply on screen saying
> error invalid?? Ignore this error and set VDD back to 5V.)
> Switch VDD supply off at the power supply.
> Switch off programmer supply.
> Wait 10 to 20 secs.
> Switch on programmer supply.
> Switch the VDD supply to 5V.
> Read PIC.
>
> What may be confusing to people is the error message displayed
> when programming the configuration fuses, and next not waiting for
> the charge on the cells to fall back to 5 volts after setting the
> fuses. This is why I say switch off for 10 to 20 secs, but don't
> forget to reset the VDD supply to 5 volts first.

[WickedAirSportz]

This bug was found only the first 16C84 PICs, and was immediately corrected by Microchip. In fact, because of this bug, extra security measures were added to make sure something like this would never happen ever again.

By the way, YOU basically have the entire TurboRev logic figured out. 512 bytes (words if you like that phrase better) of code space is plenty of space to handle the algorithm. It was a challenge to get that along with the LED control, battery voltage comparison, push button switch debounce, and a few other misc control routines.

There are no interrupts in the 12C508/509 PICs. You have to simulate one by using the timer.

The TurboRev II will use the latest state of the art PIC micro. How lastest? Well, it gets released this month. It is the same package size (8 pin SOIC), has interrupts, EEPROM, 1K of code space, 3 times the RAM, an A/D converter, and is flashable. Not bad for a part that is $1.12 each.

Some people question that a motor's speed and torque can be controlled via a PIC micro. You will find numerous motor speed control circuits using the 12C50x family parts on the internet. This is where I got the example source code for handling the duty cycle and frequency output to the motor driver.

Since there is an eye, you can "clock" the amount of time between balls passing by the eye. By varying the motor speed, you can easily determine if the current speed is working good or bad, and increasing or decreasing the speed can be compared against a speed that is known to be the fastest feeding. Taking this to another level, you can deliberately stutter the rotation of the paddles with the feeding to determine if you can in fact "smack" the stack of balls to improve the feeding, all by adjusting the torque as well as motor speed. You can easily build patterns that work, and stick with them. When paint stops flowing, the table pointers are cleared and the process starts over. Due to the limited RAM and lack of EEPROM in the 12C508A part, there is no way to permanently store what has been learned for further comparison. With the new PIC part, that will be possible so that the feeding algorithm will function even quicker.

[314159]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
This bug was found only the first 16C84 PICs, and was immediately corrected by Microchip. In fact, because of this bug, extra security measures were added to make sure something like this would never happen ever again.

heh, oh well. life goes on i suppose.

[Miscue]

Question: Why does a revy need to be able to learn? Does it play chess too?

[WickedAirSportz]

Do you want the hopper to feed fast? If so, you need to determine the optimal speed/torque for the motor (at the very least).

A very simplified form of hopper AI can be viewed like this:

The time between balls is clocked in, and an average over a period of time is recorded. Now, increasing and decreasing the motor speed is going to affect that average. So, the software can determine what the best possible speed is to allow the balls to flow the quickest.

This method alone works great, but it can not deliberately accelerate the stack of balls, although this does happen on occassion as you see a spike in the timing chart.


Miscue, you and others asked for an explanation (proof) of how the TurboRev technology works. I am providing that to you. If you intend to make smart *** remarks, then I won't waste my time.

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
This method alone works great, but it can not deliberately accelerate the stack of balls, although this does happen on occassion as you see a spike in the timing chart.

Exactly! It works great as an agitating system, which I have said all along, but there is no way with such a paddle system you will be able to synchronise the falling of the paintballs into an empty breech in order to reliably feed faster than any other agitating system.

The chance of a paddle hitting a ball is just too randomn, and the chance of that ball falling into the feed tube at the right time within a few ms, is unreal.

And each ball would have to fall down an empty feed tube to make a difference or be exactly timed to work in conjunction with when the bolt moves (not possible when it's a random paddle rotation and collision with paintball). Since the hopper is not linked to the gun's firing, nor does it know how far away the eye is from the breech it's just a pipe dream to think that your hypothesis on how it works is even plausible.

It's a great agitating hopper, it's not a force feed system and it can not run a gun set at 18bps.

We are still waiting for a video of it running a gun at 18bps full auto reliably... Still waiting for any proof whatsoever on the claims of feed rates you make for it, other than 'word' of mouth :rolleyes: Which just doesn't cut it.

manike

[marley618]

This is a little off topic but:I've heard people say you use a Halo B when you are giving a demo of your Timmy Board. Why don't you use a turbo rev instead? It should feed fast enough, right?:rolleyes:

[WickedAirSportz]

... there is no way with such a paddle system you will be able to synchronise the falling of the paintballs into an empty breech in order to reliably feed faster than any other agitating system

Wrong!

How can YOU be so bold as to say this? Have you done months worth of research on this technology to determine if it is possible or not... I didn't think so.

This IS entirely possible, and this IS how the TurboRev works. Like it or not... Nothing else is faster in the agitated hopper arena.

Let's break this down into steps: Are saying that it is absolutely impossible to cause the motor to oscillate with the falling of the balls? (a simple yes or no question)

[WickedAirSportz]

Originally posted by marley618
This is a little off topic but:I've heard people say you use a Halo B when you are giving a demo of your Timmy Board. Why don't you use a turbo rev instead? It should feed fast enough, right?:rolleyes:

The TurboRev won't feed the 22+ bps that we need for the demos.

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Wrong!

How can YOU be so bold as to say this? Have you done months worth of research on this technology to determine if it is possible or not... I didn't think so.

I haven't done months of research no... I've done about 8 years of it... That's how long I have been testing and looking at paintball loader systems. I have conducted tests like you say and I have looked at the synchronisation of feeding balls out of a loader to how the bolt cycles. I've done this with guns without ACE and guns with ACE.

via the randomn knocking of balls down a tube I've never achieved over 16bps and certainly not 18bps. By actively feeding them down at specific times with intervals to allow the bolt to cycle in relation to the bolt and firing of the gun I was able to increase the feed rates, but not reliably. And this is with a release system that purposely dropped a ball to be in time with the open breech. Not a randomn paddle rotation as you use.

That's one of the reasons I still think you are full of crap. I'm still waiting to see any theory of yours that isn't absolute codswallop.

Just show us some proof. Where is a video of a Turbo Rev on a gun shooting 18bps? that's all we want to see!

It is not possible. I watched a Turbo rev in a clear hopper and all it does is reliably keep the feed tube full. It has no synchronisation to the opening of the breech or the gun firing. It's obvious from just watching it keep the feed tube full that it can't synchronise the randomn smacking and dropping of paintballs into the breech.

It's easy to make the motor oscillate with the falling of the balls. It's impossible with such a paddle to ensure it knocks a ball down when required.

manike

[hitech]

It looks like Miscue had this figured out from the start.


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
The TurboRev II will use the latest state of the art PIC micro... Not bad for a part that is $1.12 each.


Originally posted by Miscue
Now, I'm looking at this picture of the TurboRev Board. I see some capacitors, a diode, a switch, some other stuff, and a PIC 12C508A microcontroller. I'm still looking for the "latest state-of-the-art microprocessor with artificial intelligence software," that's supposed to be on there.

A $1.12 "computer" that is capable of artificial intelligence software. I never would have believed...


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
512 bytes (words if you like that phrase better) of code space is plenty of space to handle the algorithm. It was a challenge to get that along with the LED control, battery voltage comparison, push button switch debounce, and a few other misc control routines.


Originally posted by Miscue
The 12C508A has 33 single word instructions, 512 words of program memory and 25 bytes of data RAM. Out of these 33 instructions, the ability to multiply or divide numbers is not present.

It was a challenge to get the simple routines in there, but not the AI code. I wonder why we haven't seen any "robots" using this "computer"? AI software would be great for "robots". And BTW, a byte is 8 bits, period.


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
You can easily build patterns that work, and stick with them. When paint stops flowing, the table pointers are cleared and the process starts over. Due to the limited RAM and lack of EEPROM in the 12C508A part, there is no way to permanently store what has been learned for further comparison.


Originally posted by Miscue
All they have is a SINGLE trial in which they mention average feed rates. Seems to me that they produced numbers AFTER the board was made, and did NOTHING before it was made.


Since it can't store anything permanently, and it clears the tables after paint stops flowing the best it can do is adjust to a single string of shots. Artificial intelligence software? Really?

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Nothing else is faster in the agitated hopper arena.

Agitated? exactly. To get it to feed at the rates you claim it would have to be force feed :D

BTW I have found that the re-load kit works better than the turbo rev.

manike

[hitech]

Jeez, I gotta learn to type faster...

[manike]

Originally posted by hitech
Since it can't store anything permanently, and it clears the tables after paint stops flowing the best it can do is adjust to a single string of shots. Artificial intelligence software? Really?

Yes and apparently it takes at least 16 shots before it works out the table :rolleyes: so if you fire less than 16 shots in a burst it won't be able to do it's 'thang'.

And it stops using the ball data :rolleyes: after 30 shots... so if you fire a longer string it is no longer 'adapting' :rolleyes: to the balls dropping.

So to summarise, it won't be more than an agitator if you shoot less than 16 balls. (What happens at the start of an 18bps burst then....) and it won't be more than an agitator if you fire a burst of over 30 balls...

So if you want to shoot fast besure to count and make sure you do at least 17 balls (the last one will be 'extra fast' ;) ) and no more than 30 or you might chop them...

:rolleyes:

manike

p.s. Still waiting for the 18bps video of a turbo rev on a non ace'd gun...

[cphilip]

Originally posted by manike
I'm still waiting to see any theory of yours that isn't absolute codswallop.

manike


Ummmmmmm....how the heck am I supposed to Moderate that? I have no idea what that means!

grumble grumble grumble...

:D

[WickedAirSportz]

Where did you get the 30 balls figure? Yes, the syncronizing routine requires no less than 16 balls, but no more than 32 balls to syncronize, and is designed to work around a steady stream with little fluctuation in the ball spacing (about a 80ms window).

As far as the video goes, I did not video this event - it happened a year ago. If you notice on our website, it states 16bps (not 18bps), and has for a year. By your own admission, you have seen 16bps possible. If you spent years doing research, how come you have not come up with the fastest agitated hopper upgrade like I did in a few months?

By the way, a BYTE is not always 8 bits. That is the old school way of thinking. If you program assembly on a PowerPC processor, you are going to have some problems. :) A BYTE is 16 bits, a WORD is 32 bits, and a LONG is 64 bits, and a DOUBLE is 128 bits. In microcode technology, a BYTE represents the smallest path size of the execution pipeline.

[hitech]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
By the way, a BYTE is not always 8 bits. That is the old school way of thinking...In microcode technology, a BYTE represents the smallest path size of the execution pipeline.

You (and others) can re-define the term byte if you want. That seems to be what "kids" do these days, change things to fit their current situation. A byte is 8 bits.

Interesting choice of statments in my post to comment on...

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Where did you get the 30 balls figure

Oh I'm sorry it's 32 balls... Thanks for putting the correction in on that point.


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
As far as the video goes, I did not video this event - it happened a year ago. If you notice on our website, it states 16bps (not 18bps), and has for a year.

But you claimed it on a website... would you like me to quote you? again... So you have no video, and no proof that it is possible? Then how can you say...


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz on 24/08/01
You just can't argue with the fact that a gun set to shoot at 18bps (in full auto) empties the hopper in a just a few seconds, without breaks, chops, or misses. This is what we are seeing with the TurboRev upgraded hopper.

You can argue with it if there is no proof. If it was true at that time why does your website now claim 16bps? Surely you hadn't originally exagerated the truth had you? :eek: :rolleyes:

you see once again you have no proof of your claims when you make them. I believe you reduced the number from 18 to 16bps after I called you last time. I'd even be interested in seeing a gun on FA empty a Turbo rev at 16bps "without breaks, chops, or misses" Surely that will be easy for you? There has never EVER been a video or proof of it happening. Isn't that a little strange when people usually can't wait to show off what their guns can do on the net?


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
By your own admission, you have seen 16bps possible

Yes between two shots only, and purely as a lucky event, never as a reliable feed rate for a whole hopper that a gun could shoot on FA "without breaks, chops, or misses"


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
If you spent years doing research, how come you have not come up with the fastest agitated hopper upgrade like I did in a few months?

Because I found that it wasn't possible to do with an agitating loader, and so went off and developed something else instead :)

manike

[mykroft]

WAS: I'm wondering if you ever looked at standard practice amongst players. String of over 16 balls are rare in the tournament scene, except for back players, and even then the strings tend to be shorter. As far as I can tell from your explanation of how the Turbo-Rev works, the adaptive algorithm is useless for 75%+ of the tournament scene, who tend to snap shoot strings of 3-10 balls.

So the adaptive algorithm would appear to be useless since it requires a steady string that's excessivly long, I would suspect you pick up most of the Turbo-Rev's performance the same way an X-Board does, by spinning faster & with more torque. Now if you store the data gathered, and got the minimum string down to 8 balls or so, I could see this working, but that would take more RAM than the PIC you are using has.

[314159]

Originally posted by hitech
And BTW, a byte is 8 bits, period.

the rom on the 12c508a is 512x12bits.... that's why i used the term words.

[WickedAirSportz]

WAS: I'm wondering if you ever looked at standard practice amongst players. String of over 16 balls are rare in the tournament scene, except for back players, and even then the strings tend to be shorter. As far as I can tell from your explanation of how the Turbo-Rev works, the adaptive algorithm is useless for 75%+ of the tournament scene, who tend to snap shoot strings of 3-10 balls.

You're absolutely right! I am a back player, and I do shoot long strings lasting sometimes 5 or 6 seconds. I find it quicker to just move your barrel as you are shooting then to stop shooting, moving your barrel, and then continue. The benefits of THIS PORTION of the AI will not help snap shooters. The previously mentioned AI, where the motor speed is adjusted based on the time between balls, does increase the feed rate (which apparently is not being disputed here).


So the adaptive algorithm would appear to be useless since it requires a steady string that's excessivly long, I would suspect you pick up most of the Turbo-Rev's performance the same way an X-Board does, by spinning faster & with more torque.

The x-board does not increase the speed or torque. They just changed the delay time on the start up, and reset the LED blinking on a low battery condition. Those are the ONLY changes with the x-board when comparing the code from original boards to the x-board, side-by-side. The PICs were never locked in any of their boards, so you can check this out yourself.


Now if you store the data gathered, and got the minimum string down to 8 balls or so, I could see this working, but that would take more RAM than the PIC you are using has.

Percisely why the TurboRev II uses the newer PIC that has 1K of code space, more RAM, and EEPROM (for storing table pointers), an A/D converter for feedback on the motor torque level, and real interrupts.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Do you want the hopper to feed fast? If so, you need to determine the optimal speed/torque for the motor (at the very least).

A very simplified form of hopper AI can be viewed like this:

The time between balls is clocked in, and an average over a period of time is recorded. Now, increasing and decreasing the motor speed is going to affect that average. So, the software can determine what the best possible speed is to allow the balls to flow the quickest.

This method alone works great, but it can not deliberately accelerate the stack of balls, although this does happen on occassion as you see a spike in the timing chart.


Miscue, you and others asked for an explanation (proof) of how the TurboRev technology works. I am providing that to you. If you intend to make smart *** remarks, then I won't waste my time.

This is not proof... extremely vague.

Replace "hopper" with "popcorn popper." This popcorn popper has an agitator connected to a motor.
.
.

Do you want the popcorn popper to pop fast? If so, you need to determine the optimal speed/torque for the motor (at the very least).

A very simplified form of popcorn popper AI can be viewed like this:

The time between kernel pops is clocked in, and an average over a period of time is recorded. Now, increasing and decreasing the motor speed is going to affect that average. So the software can determine what the best possible speed is to allow the popcorn kernels to pop the quickest.

.
.

You could replace "hopper" or "popcorn popper" with microwave, dishwasher, lawn mower, blender, etc... and it would follow the same logic. Actually, pretty much everything you have said has similar problems.

If you had explained WHY... then this template would not be interchangable. The WHY's for why a hopper, popcorn popper, etc. will be different - and are not interchangeable.

This is what's happening. You are making the square peg fit the round hole. You don't even know the WHY's yourself. What you think and say is make-believe... imaginary. I believe that you believe what you say is true - and in this there is no sense in arguing. What do you say to someone who says the earth is supported by a large tortoise? "What does that tortoise stand on?" "Oh, it's tortoises all the way down!"

Sure, you may be good in field X... but that does not make you good in field Y, which you are trying to do w/o success.

I'd stick to coding... and leave the subject of "reality" alone.

[WickedAirSportz]

If you had explained WHY... then this template would not be interchangable. The WHY's for why a hopper, popcorn popper, etc. will be different - and are not interchangeable.

One step at a time. You have to learn to walk before you can run. :)

I will explain why. I have already posed several questions that have gone unanswered. I am certainly not going to give out the source code as your example, I want everyone to learn something from this... which is the way I would be able to prove that I do know WHY this works. :)

[hitech]

Originally posted by 314159
the rom on the 12c508a is 512x12bits.... that's why i used the term words.

And you would be using the term correctly. :D

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
I have already posed several questions that have gone unanswered.

How strange, I was just thinking exactly the same thing. People might get mistaken and think you were avoiding answering the questions and posting proof...

but surely that can't be the case... can it?

Your attempts to act like a 'know it all professor' are condescending and pathetic.

Put up or shut up. How about the Turbo Rev on your new intimidator with Equalizer board... surely that would get the best possible performance out of the turbo rev :rolleyes:

manike

[hitech]

Originally posted by manike
How about the Turbo Rev on your new intimidator with Equalizer board... surely that would get the best possible performance out of the turbo rev :rolleyes:

Because it won't work? :eek:

[314159]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
One step at a time. You have to learn to walk before you can run. :)

I will explain why. I have already posed several questions that have gone unanswered. I am certainly not going to give out the source code as your example, I want everyone to learn something from this... which is the way I would be able to prove that I do know WHY this works. :)

i agree with wickedairsportz. for example, obtaining the code without knowing what it's aim is would be like trying to play sokoban without knowing the destinations. you would see a bunch of info being moved around and a bunch of bits being set....

i will play


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
why does the TurboRev feed faster than any other aggitated hopper in existance?

first, assume that no paint is being fed, and the paddles were spinning all the time. the paint in the hopper would be continously spinning around. the paint moving around in a circle would have it's momentum traveling around in a circle in the direction of the propellers. this would probally result in skipping, bobbeling.... and resist gravities pull to feed it down.

it seems the most advantageous way to move the paddle would be just enough to ensure a couple balls go over the feed port, then abruptly stop it, just as the gun is firring, before the ball in que in the ball stack clears the senor, tripping it. then repeat it before the next estimated shot.

of course if the rules that are set up for the pic to spin the paddle make a wrong guess when to spin and stop the paddles, (it could detect this by verrifing the time the sensor should see a gap), it could spin for xxxx amount of time like the revvy does. and have the same preformance as a revvy.

this would not be a total loss, because the rule set would take this into account trying to adapt for the next shot fired.


P4ULuk, stop being retarded.

[Emagster]

wow...that was great miscue. Not that i know diddly squat about all this odd termonology...but it sounds good from what i got out of it

[cledford]

Originally posted by 314159


first, assume that no paint is being fed, and the paddles were spinning all the time. the paint in the hopper would be continously spinning around. the paint moving around in a circle would have it's momentum traveling around in a circle in the direction of the propellers. this would probally result in skipping, bobbeling.... and resist gravities pull to feed it down.

it seems the most advantageous way to move the paddle would be just enough to ensure a couple balls go over the feed port, then abruptly stop it, just as the gun is firring, before the ball in que in the ball stack clears the senor, tripping it. then repeat it before the next estimated shot.



This makes total sense - I think it would be called "optimizing the flow of balls to be fed by gravity."

Once gravity takes over the feed rate cannot exceed 14BPS per second, right?

If the above stated adaptive process works as suggested, I can see how it would insure that the balls would be suffering the minimum amount of force pushing them in a different direction from where you want them to go - but how does it speed up gravity?

Another question, regarding the source code - can't it be copy-writed or something?

-Calvin

[WickedAirSportz]

If the above stated adaptive process works as suggested, I can see how it would insure that the balls would be suffering the minimum amount of force pushing them in a different direction from where you want them to go - but how does it speed up gravity?

By advancing the position of the paddle slightly. Instead of now clearing the path, you are actually "tapping" the top ball in the stack as it falls, which accelerates the bottom ball into the breach.

That in a nutshell, is exactly how it works.

[cledford]

Thank you.

-Calvin

[WickedAirSportz]

The theory that I originally had was that it takes 'xx' ms for a ball to fall the ~.68" when sitting on top of the bolt. If the paddle could be wedged between three balls on their way down the feed tube (moving the middle ball completely away from the feed tube) so that the bolt was opening and closing as the balls were falling, you could easily exceed the speed of gravity @ the ~.68" distance because the distance would be just about double. I had no luck getting this to work, although I believe that this method is also possible (but much more dependant of the number of paddles and point of blockage).

[Butterfingers]

WAS,

Ill spell it out nice and simple for you.

WHERE IS THE PROOF!

You can theorize all you want, the truth is that your product does not half the stuff that you theorize.

WE WANT SIMPLE PROOF. A feat that you have not been able to provide us up to this point.

Here is my theory on truck flight....

"It is possible for the turbulance under the tires of a big rig to create enough lift for a truck to fly. Our brand of tires have an intracate tread patten that allows big rig flight to be possible. It is too complicated for me to explain big rig flight to you so i will redefine everything until you get sick and tierd of listening to me and take me at face value like a bunch of pawns. Eventhough I have never actually shown that I can fly my big rig I assure you that it is possible becuase my theory is sound and unlike any development in life I do not think it requires any proof."

Sereously cut the crap and either put up or shut up. So WAS. If you theory is so sound where is your proof?

THAT IS the bottom line.

Proof is not the argumentative fallacy and half arsed speculation you have been giving us, proof is a gun shooting 16 BPS as you claim with a turborev.

A quote from a wiseman:

"WAS= Wild A..ed Speculation"

[314159]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
By advancing the position of the paddle slightly. Instead of now clearing the path, you are actually "tapping" the top ball in the stack as it falls, which accelerates the bottom ball into the breach.

at first glance at this, i thought that the length of the feed neck was not significant, because the distance from the paddle to the eye was a fixed distance. you trigger the paddle a given amount of time after you see a ball fall, and it wacks the ball above it... right?

one day i was watching a clear revolution loader. after every string the guy fired, and at every slight pause. the revy would have a ball in the beam sensor, but there would often not be a ball on top of it. in order to inshure accurate timing of the paddle to wack the top of the ball, there must be a ball to wack (NOT GAP ABOVE THE EYE).

with the proper distance under the loader, one could get the top ball in the ball stack to stick out just slightly so that the paddle wacked it every time. with a less than optimal distance under the loader, the paddle would throw out the top ball in the stack to be wacked every time. because you do not have any provisions for adjusting the length of the feed neck in the revvy, how do you insure that there is a ball in the top of the stack to be wacked every time? do you have a set of instructions for the pic for this?

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
By advancing the position of the paddle slightly. Instead of now clearing the path, you are actually "tapping" the top ball in the stack as it falls, which accelerates the bottom ball into the breach.

That in a nutshell, is exactly how it works.

For the casual observer it sounds very feasible.

An excellent theory and hypothesis, in fact it’s so good I had it myself about 5-6 years ago. I take it however that you didn’t go on to prove your hypothesis like I did. I tried to prove it but actually found out that it doesn’t/can not work. I’ll explain why.

A little back ground for you. Back when WDP developed the Angel I was also talking to them about feeding technology since the new electro was firing so fast nothing could keep up with it (this was before they added a minimum time for the bolt to dwell back between shots, and that immediately solved a lot of issues). At this point I’d already been experimenting with different paddles with more and less arms and with flexible tips and been making hoppers for my own use. WDP came out (quite independently of my research) with the intelli-feed solution and used to offer kits with the lead and a new paddle with extra long and more supple arms which they hoped would help put a force on top of the balls and knock them down into the stack.

When I spoke to John Rice about this he discussed that was what he was trying to do, and so I looked into it with my test rigs.

There are a large number of reasons why it will not/ does not work. Some of the reasons are physically and some are theoretical.

Firstly, In the feed tube of the loader balls do not stack perfectly directly above each other, the column actually snakes from side to side a little and as you also appear to have observed when the stack is falling under gravity there is a small gap between the paintballs, I expect due to how each ball interacts differently with the side wall of the loader as it drops. I took picture’s of a stack falling to observe this. So even if you put force on the top ball just after they have all started dropping it will not necessarily put force on the ball below it etc… and further on down the chain. Now you may think ‘well if I accelerate the top ball fast enough I can get it to hit the next ball, to hit the next ball etc.’ until it hits the one going into the breach. The trouble is that with all lower balls being accelerated by gravity, by the time any force you can add to the top ball catches up with the bottom one in the stack… it’s already in the breech :) doh! Too late. You only have 60ms for it to catch up and make any difference to the feed rate.

Secondly, due to where the eye is placed in the Rev feed tube it is often possible for there to not be a ball above it. The eye detects the tube to be blocked, but the space between the main cavity and the top of the tube is not always filled. This happens quite often and means by the time the rev detects a ball to be missing the feed tube is empty enough to accept two balls. If there is no ball in that space there is no ball for your paddle to put force onto to help the stream feed.

Thirdly, in order for the paddle hitting a ball to accelerate it down it has to hit it above the centre point of the ball. If it hits the ball below it’s centre it tends to knock it up and away from feeding! With a ball in the optimal position for detection by the eye the ball that is likely to get tapped by the paddle is up in the wider part of the neck, it’s not constrained and it’s not certain that tapping it will even knock it downwards. Obviously if you tap the ball below it’s equator it’s more likely to get knocked up from the tube. If you knock it on the equator it gets’ knocked sideways. Believe it or not but years ago I attached a ball onto a spring and tapped it with paddles to see which way it would go. I found that to get it to reliably go downwards from the neck that you had to hit it at an angle less than 60 degrees from the vertical. You can see why when you think about the force vector you put on the ball and it looks like this

http://www.automags.org/~Manike/was3.jpg

Thus you only have a small window in which to tap the ball to accelerate it downwards. The longest time this window will be available (if the ball is starting to move from stationary) is 29ms. If you hit it either side of that window, you will either hit it sideways or upwards or hit the ball above it upwards… if that physical window arrives when the ball is already dropping then the time window will be even smaller.

Accelerating from rest on top of the bolt into the breech a ball takes 60ms. The fastest cycling gun is the RT and it cycles in 20ms. So we will give you the benefit of the doubt and use the fastest numbers. In order to achieve 16bps you need to get the ball into the breech in 43ms. If you don’t start accelerating it in that 43ms you won’t be able to get 16bps. Obviously the sooner you start accelerating it with more force than gravity the better.

Fourthly you can only start the paddles rotating when it senses a gap. Now ideally the sensor would be poised just below the top of the ball like this http://www.automags.org/~Manike/was4.jpg such that it quickly starts the paddle. Now for the sensor to be cleared the ball is falling that 2.8mm under gravity and this will take 24ms. (each process has to start from scratch as the stack stops on the bolt each time the gun cycles) So now you have a ball that has started falling and from the total time it starts falling you must ‘tap’ it to accelerate it within 43ms. Taking that at the best case of detection that the balls are falling it will take 24ms that leaves you with just 19ms in which to tap the ball, have it accelerated and get it into the breech…

Fifthly, Considering that there are 6 arms on the recommended paddle it would need to rotate 1/6th of a rotation in 19ms in order to be able to hit the ball within the allotted window. This works out at a rotation every 0.114 seconds, and that’s 8.77 revolutions per second! It doesn’t look like the turbo rev rotates the paddles that fast at any point.

Now if you rotate the blades of the propeller that fast in order to be able to actually knock a ball down within the period it must make contact… you will just have a popcorn machine as there is not enough time between paddles passes to feed balls into the top of the tube! Now WAS does vary the speed of the paddle BUT without knowing exactly where the paddle is in it’s rotation you can’t tell when you need to have it going fast to knock the ball and when to have it going slow to allow the next ball to feed, it’s too late detect it by the eye because that is for a ball already in the feed tube being fed, you need to detect the one that is not yet at the eye. Without feedback on the paddle location it’s just not possible. I’ve tried doing this with a system where I did know where the paddle was and when it would release a ball and it still wouldn’t work very well. And obviously you don’t know where the balls are in the loader, so you have to ‘hope’ one will be in place to get tapped. In essence this is one major problem.

Sixthly, this is all in the best case scenario of ball detection! If the sensor is set up at anywhere below this http://www.automags.org/~Manike/was2.jpg then the time taken for the ball in front of the sensor to clear it is longer than the total time you have to get a ball in to achieve 16bps! Obviously the lower the sensor is below the top of the ball the less time you will have from the sensor detecting the gap in order to be able to accelerate it.

Ok still with me? Now we have two time periods that must coincide, the time in which you need to react to the previous ball dropping and the time in which hitting the ball will actually knock it in the right direction. So you have to align a window of 19ms (maximum) with a window of knocking the ball of 29ms, whilst not being certain that there is a ball available or where the paddle is to knock it! It maybe possible to get those windows to coincide BUT firstly the sensor would need to be perfectly located, the ball would need to be perfectly located (so the height of the hopper and arrangement of the balls in the feed tube is critical) and you would need to be able to hit the ball with the randomly moving paddle at just the right time. :rolleyes:

The chances of that? I’d bet more money on walking out the door sticking my hand in the air and catching the next meteor to hit earth…

And in some cases if the eye is not at the right spot in relation to the ball then it is just flat out impossible. Due to the nature of paintballs and the random way they stack in the tube the location of the eye to the top of the tube does vary. Sometimes quite significantly (mm’s).



Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
The theory that I originally had was that it takes 'xx' ms for a ball to fall the ~.68" when sitting on top of the bolt. If the paddle could be wedged between three balls on their way down the feed tube (moving the middle ball completely away from the feed tube) so that the bolt was opening and closing as the balls were falling, you could easily exceed the speed of gravity @ the ~.68" distance because the distance would be just about double. I had no luck getting this to work, although I believe that this method is also possible (but much more dependant of the number of paddles and point of blockage).

I’ve done this also :) you have to actually time the release of each ball with when the breech is open and create a gap in the feed of balls long enough to cycle the bolt completely such that the ball has an initial velocity on it’s start of entry into the breech. I got it to work with an ACE’d gun and with a special loader, but only in the laboratory and at FA. I never got a practically solution that would work for semi in the field as you actually have to pre-empt a trigger pull or wait a small period from pulling the trigger to getting your shot, and that’s just a bit silly isn’t it :)

This will sometimes happen accidentally when using a gun with ACE, the hopper plays catch up and the gun has almost shot the feed tube empty, the catching up ball drops in so quickly you can get two shots together very fast. Trouble is if there are other balls following it they stop on the bolt and have to start accelerating from rest again.

If you could time the balls to be dropping to when the bolt is ready and just about to fire with a gap between them sufficient to cycle the bolt completely, then you could increase feed rates with a gravity loader. It’s not a reliable system though as far as I have found.

WAS, you are unlucky, it’s a good hypothesis, but unfortunately you probably found the one person that has tried it before and analysed the idea. Your system works excellently as an agitating loader, and slowing the paddles is actually often a very good thing (too many people think making them go faster is better) and I’ve always said it is a good agitating system, but it is not a force feed system and it does not work the way you claim above. You can see this just by watching a clear hopper. For it to even have a chance to work like you suggest it has to keep the feed tube absolutely full all of the time, in order to have a ball at the top to tap, and if you watch it under heavy rof you can see that it doesn’t, just like any agitator.

To be honest if I was you and someone attacked my claims and if they were valid it would be easy for me to step outside, make a video and prove them wrong immediately. But you don’t. Instead you debate, and waffle on about irrelevancies. I don’t get that. The proof is in the pudding, if it’s possible, show us. No more talk, proof please :)

manike

[manike]

Originally posted by 314159
at first glance at this, i thought that the length of the feed neck was not significant, because the distance from the paddle to the eye was a fixed distance. you trigger the paddle a given amount of time after you see a ball fall, and it wacks the ball above it... right?

one day i was watching a clear revolution loader. after every string the guy fired, and at every slight pause. the revy would have a ball in the beam sensor, but there would often not be a ball on top of it. in order to inshure accurate timing of the paddle to wack the top of the ball, there must be a ball to wack (NOT GAP ABOVE THE EYE).

with the proper distance under the loader, one could get the top ball in the ball stack to stick out just slightly so that the paddle wacked it every time. with a less than optimal distance under the loader, the paddle would throw out the top ball in the stack to be wacked every time. because you do not have any provisions for adjusting the length of the feed neck in the revvy, how do you insure that there is a ball in the top of the stack to be wacked every time? do you have a set of instructions for the pic for this?

Well noticed, you got your post in while I was formulating my above reply :rolleyes: :

As I explained above this is a major issue and just one of the reasons why WAS's claims and hypothesis does not work. I'm not convinced that the distance between the eye and the paddle is even close to being correct to try and get the tap to work, but then since the whole theory is mute what does it matter? :)

manike

[mykroft]

WAS: The difference between the Pre-BE board(1st gen) and the BE board(2nd Gen) is the delay (implemented to counter the sunlight&sensor issue on Gem's). The X-Board, which is spins noticably faster than a 1st or second gen board, you can demonstrate this by running them side by side.

The Xboard is a different design than the earlier boards.

[Koosh]

Wait wait wait....

Doesnt WAS also sell modified impellers that don't even go over the feed tube? Aren't they supposed to help with the feed rate? IF that is true, does it just totally blow the theory out of water (again)?

[Gambit22]

Well, this is going in to the FAT. A most worthy rambling.

[Butterfingers]

the vortex impellers do in fact extend over the feed tube.

[Koosh]

DOH!

hehe... nevermind then...

[WickedAirSportz]

Now WAS does vary the speed of the paddle BUT without knowing exactly where the paddle is in it?s rotation ...

This is where you are wrong, and where most the logic comes into play. You can tell with a certain degree of accuracy where the paddles are located in reference to the feed neck by calculating the space between balls and the reaction to the motor speed. One thing that I have always stated is that for the TurboRev to work properly, you paddles arms MUST be bent down as far as possible (so that they rub the sides of the hopper). This puts the arm directly over the inlet whole, about 1/2 a balls distance from the hole itself. The WAS modified Vortex impellers do just that. If your arms are not bent down, this whole process will not work _at all_.


As far as the x-board vs standard board goes. There is no difference in the hardware, it is the exact same board. The ONLY difference is in the code. Go dump the PICs yourself. The only difference between the code is the delays were shortened with the x-board and they added a reset for the low battery indicator so that it is checked and reset periodically (instead of always flashing when the battery is low).

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
This is where you are wrong, and where most the logic comes into play. You can tell with a certain degree of accuracy where the paddles are located in reference to the feed neck by calculating the space between balls and the reaction to the motor speed.

Codswallop. You can only tell that a paddle is within 60 degrees of the feed neck due to the fact there are 6 paddles within 360 degrees... There is no way you can relate the speed of the balls passing the sensor with where the paddles are in their rotation.

As I pointed out, even if you knew where the paddles were, and had the balls lined up, and the eye at the right point it still won't work.

Where is the evidence?

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

manike

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
this whole process will not work _at all_.

You said it :D

manike

[WickedAirSportz]

I guess one thing you would have to explain away is this fact:

You "comment out" the subroutine call for the logic in question, and the feed rate drops. How could this be if it didn't work?

[Butterfingers]

Gee WAS we still come to the bottom line don't we?

Instead of just speculating, why dont you just prove your claims and shut us all up.

[mykroft]

WAS: Put an X-Board rev beside a 1st gen rev, empty, and turn the thing on, watch the X-Board spin faster. It's visible to the naked eye.

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
I guess one thing you would have to explain away is this fact:

You "comment out" the subroutine call for the logic in question, and the feed rate drops. How could this be if it didn't work?

Is that your only proof that your hypothesis is correct?

Geeze, how the heck did you graduate with all of those degrees?

Varying the paddle rotation to the rate of drop of the paddles is an excellent way to stir the pot the best way possible and agititate to get a good stream of balls falling into the loader aperture. I have respect for that part of your code, and thoroughly understand how it can help keep the tube as full as possible and make as reliable an agitating system as it can. But that's not what you claimed. You claimed it allowed feed rates over what an agitating system can, that's what I am calling. Your hypothesis on how it can achieve higher feed rates is what I am calling.

I hypothesise that by losing that logic, and I'm guessing just rotating the paddle constantly, you may not have the ideal rotation rate and thus it won't stir the pot efficiently, or worse it will rotate too fast and bounce balls around in a popcorn effect. I've seen both happen. By varying the rate you are more likely to pass through the rotation rate which is ideal and thus help to feed better than a constant rate at the wrong value.

manike

[WickedAirSportz]

I hypothesise that by losing that logic, and I'm guessing just rotating the paddle constantly, you may not have the ideal rotation rate and thus it won't stir the pot efficiently, or worse it will rotate too fast and bounce balls around in a popcorn effect. I've seen both happen. By varying the rate you are more likely to pass through the rotation rate which is ideal and thus help to feed better than a constant rate at the wrong value.

Nice try. When the logic can not determine the optimal pulsation rate necessary for syncronization, the routine simply falls back to varying the motor speed to provide the best feeding. This happens in a drop test.

You think it is physically impossible to syncronize the feeding to the outlet drop frequency. I disagree. You believe that you can not determine within a certain degree of accuracy of where the paddle blades are located. I disagree. In fact, I can tell you how many blades the paddle has by the outlet drop frequency vs motor speed! This is how I know this works!

[314159]

Originally posted by manike
I have respect for that part of your code....

we haven't seen any of the code yet, ¬_¬

[manike]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Nice try. When the logic can not determine the optimal pulsation rate necessary for syncronization, the routine simply falls back to varying the motor speed to provide the best feeding. This happens in a drop test.

This was in responce to your saying when you remove that part of the logic, my mistake, I thought you meant removed the logic that varies the rotational speed.


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
You think it is physically impossible to syncronize the feeding to the outlet drop frequency. I disagree. You believe that you can not determine within a certain degree of accuracy of where the paddle blades are located. I disagree. In fact, I can tell you how many blades the paddle has by the outlet drop frequency vs motor speed! This is how I know this works!

Well you have seen my evidence and theories and proof... where is yours? is your only proof the fact that you disagree?

*la la la I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and not listening to you because I am right la la la*

Sound familiar? Time to grow up, and back up what you say with evidence or shut up as someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on.

manike

[manike]

Originally posted by 314159
we haven't seen any of the code yet, ¬_¬

are you implying that maybe it doesn't even do that?

It's the principle of doing it and the idea that I agree with.

manike

[WickedAirSportz]

You claimed it allowed feed rates over what an agitating system can, that's what I am calling. Your hypothesis on how it can achieve higher feed rates is what I am calling.

Ok, let's start there. Do you believe it is possible to strike the stack of balls (or balls surrounding the stack where kinetic energy can be applied) to accelerate the bottom most ball under ANY circumstance? Don't you think this happens on occassion anyways?

[manike]

WAS, I suggest you actually read my posts and what I said, you will find I answered this already. I'm not sure if I can even be bothered to humour you with replying now.


Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Do you believe it is possible to strike the stack of balls (or balls surrounding the stack where kinetic energy can be applied) to accelerate the bottom most ball under ANY circumstance? Don't you think this happens on occassion anyways?

It is possible for it to happen occasionally and accidentally, but it's a rare and lucky occurrence. You talk about a consistent 16bps which means it has to happen every single ball. :rolleyes:

As I stated it's very unlikely, due to gaps in the stack and due to the lucky timing and small windows of opportunity that are available.

Where is the video? or proof? or evidence?

A little less conversation a little more action please :)

manike

[314159]

Originally posted by manike
It is possible for it to happen occasionally and accidentally, but it's a rare and lucky occurrence. You talk about a consistent 16bps which means it has to happen every single ball.

Wicked Air Sportz introduces an upgraded circuit board for your Brass Eagle/Viewloader Revolution! This amazing board kicks your Revvy into high gear, allowing consistant feeding of up to 16 balls per second!

TurboRev with WAS modified Vortex Impeller
Overall Average Feed Rate: 13.407 bps

bolth taken from the same page at http://www.wickedairsportz.com/products/turborev.htm

i think that the 16 bps constant* might mean, 16bps at sea level, average tempature and humidity, maby slightly pressurised hopper ;) ......

i do expect marketers to be unethical.... that is why you never trust them ;)

[WickedAirSportz]

Overall Average Feed Rate: 13.407 bps

Drop tests can not accerate the balls, as there is no way to build a pattern. Kind of like not having a muffler on an engine (back pressure) reduces your low end torque.

[cledford]

Is that why drag pipes are only about 12 inches long? :)

[314159]

"Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic" Clark

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo" Asimov

[Timmee]

A good point that was brought up by someone wiser than me was how does the eye detect the direction of ball travel? Since there is only 1 eye, the only thing it should be able to sense is if there's a ball blocking the sensor.

A question I had was how does your system compensate for blowback? Wouldn't blowback reduce or negate any performance increase that your system claims to have (in regards to smacking the balls into the breech)?

[ShooterJM]

On a side note, I have a few suggestions.

1) Maybe move this to Technical Roundtable when the forum is ready?

2) Mods watch this carefully so it doesn't just turn into a flame fest. I know people are frustrated, but hey, in the end we all love the same sport and want what's best for it right?




Now I'd also like to point out that this is the sappiest message ever posted by yours truly. Sounds like a "Can't we all just get along" snivel, but you know what I'm trying to say.

[WickedAirSportz]

A question I had was how does your system compensate for blowback? Wouldn't blowback reduce or negate any performance increase that your system claims to have (in regards to smacking the balls into the breech)?

Yep, it certainly does. If your gun has so much blow back that it moves the entire stack, you should probably consider venting the feed tube.

[Timmee]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz


Yep, it certainly does. If your gun has so much blow back that it moves the entire stack, you should probably consider venting the feed tube.

On my Minimag, there would be a large stack of balls to keep that from happening, but what about on a vertical feed marker? My Rainmaker and Autococker can only have about 2 balls in the stack before the hopper's eye.

[SlartyBartFast]

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz


Drop tests can not accerate the balls, as there is no way to build a pattern. Kind of like not having a muffler on an engine (back pressure) reduces your low end torque.

LOL!!:rolleyes:

I was going to stay away from this thread and just amuse myself reading the *ABSOLUTE* lack of any relevant information, evidence, or other proof and the conniptions AO members are all putting themselves into arguing with a brick wall. But that statement has got to be laughed at.

It's true that the lack of a tail pipe will affect the performance of an engine, but to use that as the excuse/analogy for a hopper emptying is rediculous.

The loss of power in an engine due to either too little back pressure has far more to do with how the engine is breathing than anything else. Essentially, high flow exhausts are counterproductive unless the engine is also modified on the intake side or the intake to exhaust balance had some room to tweek.

WAS, stick to electronic if you really are a genius in that field :D and stay out of automotive analogies. If you lost a little of the arrogance and tried to actually give any real information, the people on this board would become your supporters and admirers.

Manike, Shartly, and all the other valiant AO members tilting windmills:

GIVE UP!:p This guy is just never going to get it. While he was once only a social outcast/recluse genius with an arrogance problem, he's now successfully grafted those fine social skills onto the heart and soul of an unrepentant snake oil marketer.

He'll never provide proof and I think that anybody with even a quarter brain has reached the point where they know he never will (or can't ;) ).

Why doesn't somebody put this pathetic squabbling to rest and just put the hopper on WARPIGs hopper test setup and be done with this once and for all?

[SlartyBartFast]

ROTFL!

I just realised the irony of my SIG in this thread.


"My claims are definitive. Reality IS inaccurate.
WAS"


:D

[Cristobal]

Someone around here has to have a turbo/revy and a marker than can do 16bps. Put the hopper on there, turn your ACE off and take a video of what happens. Or better yet, keep the ACE on and then we can look a the sound waveform to see if the marker ever has to wait for a ball. I know WAS has the equipment to do this...

[314159]

load sm5 has one, and he has a sfl emag. i wonder if we could draw him into this?

here is a link of his gun and turborev

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47668

[Koosh]

guys, I have a movie of my Race-Cocker doing 13 bps with no eye and a turborevvy....

It chops!

but my batteries were getting weak, so I don't know if this would count...

[Restola]

Anyone else notice WAS will answer the random and ignorant posts from the average joe, but has avoided manike on all but 3 posts?

I'm sure WAS will respond to THIS post as another excuse to avoid manike's well worded questions...

[mikebridge]

you don't need no stinking muffler on there to have backpressure and torque. thats why they invented turbos. turn about 33% of that wasted heat coming out of your cylinders into power. boost == torque, torque == fun!
and i'm not EVEN gonna get started on the can/cannot of the 'AI' in the WAS revy chip.

[hitech]

I like tilting at windmills. ;) Besides, many more people are reading this than those of us who have replied. I'll bet there are a few who have formed opinions because of this thread. That makes all this worth while. :D

[314159]

an idea to test if the paddles push the paint down.

-take a paper clip
-straighten it out
-go down 1 inch, bend 90 degrees
-curve the 1 inch portion so it matches the curve of the revy
-attach with a rubber band as high on the feed tube of the revvy will allow
-throw a second ruber band on slightly below the 1st
-cut the paperclip so it extends about 1/4 in below the feed tube
-with loader off, and containing paint, bend the bottom of the paper clip so it just barely holds the paint, and just enough to stop the next ball up if the bottom ball is quickly removed to simulate firing


-take a ball, tape a piece of string on it or something so you can yank it from the turborev quickly to simulate firing.
-load this ball in first to the turborev with string hanging out
-dump some paint in the turborev
-turn it on, and yank out the ball with the string on it.
-see if the ball above it is forced out by the paddles accelerating the paintballs.

[kevdupuis]

Originally posted by hitech
I like tilting at windmills. ;) Besides, many more people are reading this than those of use who have replied. I'll bet there are a few who have formed opinions because of this thread. That makes all this worth while. :D


Amen brother,

[Pain4u]

I have a turborev , pre-brass , reg.12v rev
Im shooting a F5 , Race , 2K Angel tried all the revs with each gun.
Actually its my team mates son that is shooting them he shoots a-hell-of-alot faster than us. The ROF on the Angel is the only thing we can go by to see how fast he shoots (15bps)
Filled the all hoppers
The turborev , pre-brass were about the same on the 3 guns and keep up fine.
The big differance in the 2 were the turborev eat batteries.
The pre brass works great with black shells, if you had the colored shells you have to paint the bottom black so the light wouldnt get in to spin the paddles.
The reg. 12v rev was either chopping paint or just shooting blanks. It couldnt keep up at all big differance from the other 2 revs.
Conclusion:
I prefer pre-brass rev because I dont have to buy batteries every other day.

Hope this help you out on the working part. I dont know the adj/speeds of the motor part or about the board.

[Automaggin]

<B>*POOF*</B>

You are banned. -Miscue

[xmetal2001]

So, did WAS ever convince anybody? Maybe i missed it but it seemed like we never got the proof.

[Koosh]

<B>*POOF*</B>

Whoa there, slow down, turbo!

Who exactly are you talking to? WAS? Because I bet if you were to actually see him in real life, he would be able to kick the crap out of you, seeing as how you have acted with the maturity of a sub-12 year old...

I know WAS hasn't made the best points, but comeon... at least try to call them out, not call him nasty names...

[Automaggin]

Banned. -Miscue

[314159]

the tourborev- it would kill you and everyone you cared about if it controlled any more than just a paddle ;)

[speedyejl]

this would be all over if we all just bought HALOs :D
Sorry, I just had to say that