So I was Thinking about a New Gun Design.....

[nerobro]

NO, HUGE NO. Pressure-related dwell compensation is strictly verboten. Regulators are selected to avoid recharge issues.

The rest of the stuff is simply non-issues. The reliability of current setups is simply not a concern.

Yes, huge yes. First, i'm not taking pot shots at random here. Every design has it's problems. Despite all the potential pitfalls of most modern guns they run remarkably well.

With poppet valve guns. The poppet valve itself is a regulator. The valve on most of the guns is not balanced, and changes in input pressure will change lift and duration. That is not up for debate. That would be pressure related dwell compensation.....

In a large part regulators are not selected, they're built on the cheap, using whatever design fits the appearance that the company would like. Or more commonly, whatever they can produce easily. It is uncommon that a company will design around a good regulator. This particular forum is hosted by one of those companies. SP hung onto their regs for a long time, I think they knew what they had, and wouldn't give it up easily. The other brand that did so is no longer producing guns. Though they're still selling regs ;-)

I was making my example to point out that guns are complex, and have a huge number of failure modes, many of which could cause harm to other players. Yet, despite all these problems, the guns are relatively trouble free. You're right, the reliability is not a concern. I have a LED dark angel that still shoots like it should. And I have a cheap descendant, and it too works as it should. An electronically controlled valve would have even fewer places to fail.

[drg]

You're missing what I was saying, I quoted the part I did for a reason. Dwell compensation for possible dropoff is unheard of and undesirable. Such dwell modification is currently only associated with cheater boards. If one finds reg recharge speed or consistency an issue, one fixes it with a better regulator.

[Coralis]

Well I was wondering (perhaps I read it wrong) are you going to control the velocity of each and every ball ? How do you plan to account for the varying size of paintballs ? (or is it something that you don't want to discuss in a public forum at this stage of possible development). Any way I had a thought on it , what if you have something installed in the breach that would act like a ball detent but also sealed all the way around the ball. Would that then help shoot a more consistent velocity at a constant pressure and volume?

[Newt]

As I understood it, AGD is not producing this as a new marker. That's why the concept is being put into public domain: on the chance that a motivated entity would take the idea and do something with it.

As fr the concept, unless someone finds a way to measure velocity on the shot while it's being fired, or predict the velocity for the ball by measuring it's characteristics as it's loaded (minute shape and mass differences etc), it's impossible. Rather, you'd have the board record velocity of previous shots and keep a moving average. That way it would have a feel for how the current hopperful of paint is firing and how best to react to it.

[Miltonyz]

You're missing what I was saying, I quoted the part I did for a reason. Dwell compensation for possible dropoff is unheard of and undesirable. Such dwell modification is currently only associated with cheater boards. If one finds reg recharge speed or consistency an issue, one fixes it with a better regulator.

That's like your opinion man. I see no moral or ethical difference between adjusting velocity through regulators or electronics.

[drg]

That's like your opinion man. I see no moral or ethical difference between adjusting velocity through regulators or electronics.

It's not an opinion that it is currently not used in marker electronics except for cheater boards.

[nerobro]

First off, FSDO compensation is something that's used on tourney legal boards. If those are cheater, then you don't agree with the governing bodies. FSDO compensation IS dwell adjustment.

So where are you going with this? It seems like you just don't like the idea of an electronically controlled valve. That's ok. Do you have anything constructive to say? That doesn't imply what you have to say is for, or against it, just something useful.

The argument that dwell does not change (weather as part of the software or not) is not correct. As there are many, many factors that lead to differing dwell on a poppet, or dump chamber gun. I'm not attacking them as a whole, as I've said before, they work remarkably well. Heck, short of the one mag i have left, (Oh how i miss my micromag....), everything I own is poppet valve. With various modes of hammer actuation.

A gun with a peizo operated valve, would have valve duration repeatable to the nearest 100us every single shot. There would be no valve bounce. There would be no concern of residual pressure in the chamber, as there would be no chamber.

If we used a blow-forward configuration with this, we could use several short pulses of air to actuate the bolt softly, which took all the complication of the LX to do. With precise air metering, we could get around the touchy adjustable PT o-ring situation. Since we're not sealing a chamber, we could even drop the PT o-ring entirely.

[drg]

First off, FSDO compensation is something that's used on tourney legal boards. If those are cheater, then you don't agree with the governing bodies. FSDO compensation IS dwell adjustment.

I already addressed FSDO compensation, in fact I was the first person to do so in this thread. Equating FSDO compensation to active dwell control, particularly as you described it, in response to regulator recharge issues, is disingenuous at best.

So where are you going with this? It seems like you just don't like the idea of an electronically controlled valve.

All of my play guns, both semi and pumps, use electronically controlled valves. So maybe I know a thing or two about them and their implications.

The argument that dwell does not change (weather as part of the software or not) is not correct. As there are many, many factors that lead to differing dwell on a poppet, or dump chamber gun. I'm not attacking them as a whole, as I've said before, they work remarkably well. Heck, short of the one mag i have left, (Oh how i miss my micromag....), everything I own is poppet valve. With various modes of hammer actuation.

We're not talking about dwell fluctuation in normal operation, we're talking about actively compensating for that fluctuation. In a properly set up gun, there is no way to actively compensate for dwell fluctuation in normal cyclic operation, thus active dwell compensation is used solely for cheating today.

A gun with a peizo operated valve, would have valve duration repeatable to the nearest 100us every single shot. There would be no valve bounce. There would be no concern of residual pressure in the chamber, as there would be no chamber.

Such control precision is unnecessary. We already have reached a point at which added valve control precision yields no better consistency. The largest single cause of inconsistency is the paintball itself. Its tolerances are simply too low for gas system precision beyond a certain point to matter.

[Beemer]

So where are you going with this? It seems like you just don't like the idea of an electronically controlled valve. That's ok. Do you have anything constructive to say? That doesn't imply what you have to say is for, or against it, just something useful.

It wouldnt appear that he does. Well done on not biting on the trolling and Welcome back.

It's not an opinion that it is currently not used in marker electronics except for cheater boards.

Ya we all know its already used.

All of my play guns, both semi and pumps, use electronically controlled valves. So maybe I know a thing or two about them and their implications.

If this is true then why dont you contribute in a useful way to this NEW idea??

The largest single cause of inconsistency is the paintball itself.

You got any proof or data to back that up?

Read the title again. Its a NEW idea. I dont think these guys need to waste their time with your trolling posts. If I am wrong I am sure I will hear about it. I get the feeling you just like to read yourself post.

Nothing is broke nothing to fix. Nothing here for you to see, move along. Go play with what you have and stay out of this thread if you cant be constructive or useful, if not from here on I will just remove your useless posts or take other action if I have to.

Back to the Thread at hand guys.

[nerobro]

I already addressed FSDO compensation, in fact I was the first person to do so in this thread. Equating FSDO compensation to active dwell control, particularly as you described it, in response to regulator recharge issues, is disingenuous at best.

Dwell compensation to cover regulator design issues was something I stopped talking about after I first posted about it. FSDO compensation is changing dwell. And it's changing dwell blindly.

Speaking of cheating, did you know that savvy players would use regulator lag to their advantage? I'm using the word savvy to not kick up to much of a fuss. People who take the time to balance the input pressures on their guns also have the option of setting up their gun on the falling side of the pressure-velocity curve. So that their guns would gain velocity as their regulators lagged.

All of my play guns, both semi and pumps, use electronically controlled valves. So maybe I know a thing or two about them and their implications.

This is picking a fight. Owning the guns says nothing about knowing how they operate. I'm not necessarily saying you don't, but this sort of thing is a logical fallacy.

We're not talking about dwell fluctuation in normal operation, we're talking about actively compensating for that fluctuation. In a properly set up gun, there is no way to actively compensate for dwell fluctuation in normal cyclic operation, thus active dwell compensation is used solely for cheating today.

I threw out the idea of an on-gun chronograph more or less from the first post I made. And i've defended that position several times. AGD also didn't suggest having an on-gun chronograph. Without that sort of feedback there's no reliable way to measure velocity, and then compensate for it. As you'll say later, the biggest problem with velocity consistancy are the paintballs themselves.

The reason for changing valve dwell is to compensate for input pressure. This is something that can be accurately measured, and there's solid gas law to back up varying valve duration for input pressure.

Or as suggested in the OP, you can change the valve flow charcteristics to make the gun sound different. Or just shoot really brittle paint.

Such control precision is unnecessary. We already have reached a point at which added valve control precision yields no better consistency. The largest single cause of inconsistency is the paintball itself. Its tolerances are simply too low for gas system precision beyond a certain point to matter.

This was never a questoin of necessity. If necessity was the only reason for anything in paintball, we would have stopped at the blowback semi. Just because it's going to bother you... did you know blowbacks are all guns with active dwell compensation? Properly setup sheriden style guns are much the same.

Just to reiterate the benifits of this sort of valve:

• If used with a blowforward style bolt, you could have LX performance without LX, and without the heavy springs.
• Peak ball pressures could be tailored for paint strength.
• Both on tank, and secondary regulators could be eliminated.
• The gun could be run on liquid co2, compressed air, or gas co2.
• If engineered to the same standards, the valve would have a cycle life 100-10000 times longer than conventional valves.
• The guns maintenance would be frighteningly simple. With as few as two moving parts, and potentially no active o-rings.

You're concerned about cheating. The sort of control necessary to make the gun work at all, would inhibit aftermarket board/software makers. That just means the maker of the gun in the first place has to be ethical, and setup the software right.

The closest thing I was able to decipher as your point, was that you think this would be more complex, and because we already have working gun designs, something like this isn't necessary. Is that the point you were trying to make?

Something new..
This gun/reg design would require signifigant battery power. LiPo batteries are now cheap enough that we could get the capacity of battery we'd need without the foregrip.

[Beemer]

I have come up with an idea to measure the velocity WITHOUT using eyes, sensors on the barrel or anything ugly. I would envision that you push the "reset velocity" button and start firing the gun over a crono. The velocity will go up with every shot and when you hit 280 or 300 FPS you stop firing and now the gun has the info it needs to adjust for velocity.

If you change barrels or paint, you do the same thing and your good to go. Continue the discussion with the idea that you know what the balls velocity is every shot.AGD

Care to give us some hints here?

[Lohman446]

Patent the idea, make the crudest possible prototype of it, put it in the market. Let others spend years refining and perfecting it and then move on the patent and demand royalties :).


I'm curious, are we operating under the idea that we are going to need / have reasonable access to perfect(er than now) paintballs?

[nerobro]

I don't think we'll get better velocity consistency from this. We'll obviously be eliminating yet another factor, which can't hurt.

[Lohman446]

Care to give us some hints here?

Random guess. If you are measuring input pressure and have good control over pressure in the chamber you can set velocity electronically. Rather than turning a screw the computer controls how much air goes into the chamber to propel the ball. As the tank pressure lowers the program can compensate to allow more air into the chamber, allowing you to shoot to virtually empty on the tank. When you are setting the velocity to the chrono you are simply giving hte baseline number for the program to work from.

Advantage: Allows you to use a high pressure gun (which should be more efficient from previous discussions) while still allowing you to go deep into the tank.

[nerobro]

The problem with this is flow rate. A valve that can easily and predictably meter air at 4500psi is very different from a valve that can flow enough gas at 500psi. The peizo valves only open like .004 of an inch. There are ways to make even .004 flow a lot ;-) so we'd likely be ok.