Agg Mag (mQ-Valve)

[red alert]

I would love to get this valve/frame when it comes out...but unfortunately, if the PneuMag comes out first then I'm going for that. Just saw the vid for it and it's looks awesome.

[PBX Ronin 23]

Even if the pneuMags do come out, there are still inherent advantages of the mQ such as efficiency, speed and fewer parts. But you're right the pneu Triggers are kinda cool.

[spasticsquirrel]

well i think im not gonna wait, this only solves half the problems i have with mags.

The other half is looks, and although the karta looks cool to alot of people, it doesnt suit mine.

[matt-o]

cause looks are more important than performance right?

[PBX Ronin 23]

well i think im not gonna wait, this only solves half the problems i have with mags.

The other half is looks, and although the karta looks cool to alot of people, it doesnt suit mine.

Ahhh. I do understand you. One of the main advantages of not requiring tight tolerances is the ability for more people to come up with after-market parts for a gun. All you need do is look at the history of the after-market parts for the cocker and for the mag.

What the mQ can do is lessen the demand on tight tolerances as it pertains to the body/rail/grip interface. Thus allowing more people to come up with creative cosmetic designs that they otherwise would not be able to do.

In as much as performance is paramount, pimp points is evidently a crucial point in paintball as well.

[red alert]

Do you guys have a working prototype mag version or are you guys still a long ways away? If you do, can we see a vid? I've seen the cocker version and that was amazing.

[DGBaller]

This is kinda off subject but, I bought my mag from the PBX in Jersey City why did you guys move?

[Dayspring]

We opened up PBX Battlezone.

[DGBaller]

Yeah but thats all the way in Toms river. I still live in Jersey city.

[Dayspring]

Well, can't help you there... That's where the shop is now.

[JoshK]

Do you guys have a working prototype mag version or are you guys still a long ways away? If you do, can we see a vid? I've seen the cocker version and that was amazing.

Answer his

[DGBaller]

Are you guys ever gonna move back?

[Twiek]

One serious question (which was asked but not answered):

Is the mQ CO2 compatible?

If it operates the way I think it does, then there are only 2-3 dynamic seals (which are probably all O-rings), so my guess would be yes. I realize you won't be able to pull 33 cps on CO2... I must be the only fool in the world that dosen't care about speed (past 12 bps at least). I'm sure I'm not the only one that would like to be able to use CO2 in an electro.

------------
It should theoreticly be smaller, significantly lighter, much faster, and just as effecient as poppet+hammer type valves, my only concern is with consistancy. Even with super accurate and precise (yes, they are two different things) dwell times, small variations in input pressure will cause fairly large changes in velocity.

The advantage to poppet+spring hammer type valves is that they are inherently consistant. The inrush flow closes the valve. More flow, less "dwell" (high flow closes valve faster), Less flow, more "dwell" (low flow closes valve slower). Even dump chamber guns (mag, 'trix, shocker, etc.) are fairly consistant due to the fact that they work off of a fixed volume principle. Even if there are shot-to-shot pressure differences, the volume stays the same, and the velocity is only mildly affected.

With a solenoid actuated/set dwell type poppet/release/flow control/etc. valve, then shot-to-shot pressure differences are magnified by the fact that consistant dwell plus pressure variation equals volume variation. More pressure, more "dwell" (high pressure flows faster), Less pressure, less "dwell" (low pressure flows slower). This is the exact opposite of the natural pressure compensation of the poppet+spring hammer type.

------------
Changing gears...

(Please note that even though I have read this thread, I haven't read through all the 200+ pages on PBN about the PBX 'cocker and mQ valve, so forgive me if I'm rehashing old material)

The separation of loading (bolt) and firing (valve) mechanisms opens up a large territory for marker design. While your current mag design rolls the two into one unit, it wouldn't be hard to separate the two functions by adding a LPR/'noid/ram/lightweight bolt (it would, operationally, be the same as your cocker at that point), which wouldn't even require modifications to the mainbody. Trivially, you could cycle without firing and fire without cycling (explained in a bit). You could have it switch from open to closed bolt at the flick of a switch, or have it automaticly switch between the two based on how the trigger is being pulled. You could offer different modes, like sniper (fires and bolt stays closed until trigger is released, then it goes through normal cycle), AC (fires, then opens until trigger is released, then closes), or plain old closed (full cycle on pull). You could detect pinches, and cycle the bolt without firing (this is why cycling without firing would be an advantage). It would also reduce the firing delay (time between trigger pull and ball firing), eliminate pre-fire shake (there wouldn't be any reciprocating parts moving prior to the ball firing), and reduce the overall kick (you could use a small/simple/super light bolt).

The 'mag is an ideal platform. All the hard parts of the marker are already done for you, and it's easy to develop just the internals. Among other things, that reduces overall cost. It's also extremly versatile... You can swap out bodys and frames in a few minutes, use centerfeed, warp feed, powerfeed, .45 frame, y-grip, z-grip, different styles, different colors, etc, etc. The 'mag platform is already compact and lightweight. It has a strong existing consumer base, but could also attract more. It also allows a variety of marketing techniques.

And into the nitty-gritty: Instead of building the automation parts into the grip frame, cram 'em into the frame rail. You could still use a threaded rod for the trigger system that would allow you to use literally any existing grip, and not have to worry about tolerances. At most, you'd put have the battery in the grip frame (you can fit one in the rail, just not a 9v ). The frame rail gives you more room to work with and is easier to design and manufacture: It's not an ergonomic part.

I've had this type of idea for the 'mag platform for a while now.... it's just too perfect to not be utilized.

[PBX Ronin 23]

One serious question (which was asked but not answered):

Is the mQ CO2 compatible?

If it operates the way I think it does, then there are only 2-3 dynamic seals (which are probably all O-rings), so my guess would be yes. I realize you won't be able to pull 33 cps on CO2... I must be the only fool in the world that dosen't care about speed (past 12 bps at least). I'm sure I'm not the only one that would like to be able to use CO2 in an electro.

First off, it's kind of nice to finally answer a series questions that are pertinent and well thought of. Thank you.

With CO2's magnified effects at higher cycle rates, the issues aren't exactly as bothersome as some may think. With the exception of the Z, there really isn't a gun design out there that flourishes with liquid CO2 coursing through its airlines. In particular, any gun out there that currently uses any off-the-shelf industrial 'noids suffers greatly from unaceptable levels of failure with CO2.

But we understand that the larger portion of the playing population still uses CO2 and as such, our designs are intended to satisfy as much of the market as we can. One of our expressed goals is to outperform any gun out there when it comes to e-functionality at higher rates of fire while using CO2 as the propellant. Whether we succeed or not is not for us to decide.

It should theoreticly be smaller, significantly lighter, much faster, and just as effecient as poppet+hammer type valves, my only concern is with consistancy. Even with super accurate and precise (yes, they are two different things) dwell times, small variations in input pressure will cause fairly large changes in velocity.

The advantage to poppet+spring hammer type valves is that they are inherently consistant. The inrush flow closes the valve. More flow, less "dwell" (high flow closes valve faster), Less flow, more "dwell" (low flow closes valve slower). Even dump chamber guns (mag, 'trix, shocker, etc.) are fairly consistant due to the fact that they work off of a fixed volume principle. Even if there are shot-to-shot pressure differences, the volume stays the same, and the velocity is only mildly affected.

With a solenoid actuated/set dwell type poppet/release/flow control/etc. valve, then shot-to-shot pressure differences are magnified by the fact that consistant dwell plus pressure variation equals volume variation. More pressure, more "dwell" (high pressure flows faster), Less pressure, less "dwell" (low pressure flows slower). This is the exact opposite of the natural pressure compensation of the poppet+spring hammer type.

Good intuitive stuff. You're right, the self-compensating nature of a Nelson/Sheridan valve genre is tough to beat. The mQ is still not out there to establish enough performance history to support what we already know. There's a lot of potential e-functionality that can be controlled. To say any more would not be wise.

(Please note that even though I have read this thread, I haven't read through all the 200+ pages on PBN about the PBX 'cocker and mQ valve, so forgive me if I'm rehashing old material)

You lazy bastard...

The separation of loading (bolt) and firing (valve) mechanisms opens up a large territory for marker design. While your current mag design rolls the two into one unit, it wouldn't be hard to separate the two functions by adding a LPR/'noid/ram/lightweight bolt (it would, operationally, be the same as your cocker at that point), which wouldn't even require modifications to the mainbody.

Hmmm. I guess we can do that but why? It would, in my opinion, be unnecessarily complicated and expensive. The upgrade that we're intending for the Mag version is intended to be a cost-effective way to transform the gun....and believe me, it's bad arse.

Trivially, you could cycle without firing and fire without cycling (explained in a bit). You could have it switch from open to closed bolt at the flick of a switch, or have it automaticly switch between the two based on how the trigger is being pulled. You could offer different modes, like sniper (fires and bolt stays closed until trigger is released, then it goes through normal cycle), AC (fires, then opens until trigger is released, then closes), or plain old closed (full cycle on pull). You could detect pinches, and cycle the bolt without firing (this is why cycling without firing would be an advantage). It would also reduce the firing delay (time between trigger pull and ball firing), eliminate pre-fire shake (there wouldn't be any reciprocating parts moving prior to the ball firing), and reduce the overall kick (you could use a small/simple/super light bolt).

You've basically hit it on a nut shell as far as the advantages of a closed bolt system in the gun design that has a high degree of e-functionality.

The 'mag is an ideal platform. All the hard parts of the marker are already done for you, and it's easy to develop just the internals. Among other things, that reduces overall cost. It's also extremly versatile... You can swap out bodys and frames in a few minutes, use centerfeed, warp feed, powerfeed, .45 frame, y-grip, z-grip, different styles, different colors, etc, etc. The 'mag platform is already compact and lightweight. It has a strong existing consumer base, but could also attract more. It also allows a variety of marketing techniques.

And into the nitty-gritty: Instead of building the automation parts into the grip frame, cram 'em into the frame rail. You could still use a threaded rod for the trigger system that would allow you to use literally any existing grip, and not have to worry about tolerances. At most, you'd put have the battery in the grip frame (you can fit one in the rail, just not a 9v ). The frame rail gives you more room to work with and is easier to design and manufacture: It's not an ergonomic part.

I've had this type of idea for the 'mag platform for a while now.... it's just too perfect to not be utilized.

Unlike many doomsayers out there who will disagree with me, I think that the Mag is still a very viable mechanical platform that can be given an upgrade path similar to the Cockers. Under the right circumstances, perhaps we might even see a revival once it's priced to compete with the A5's of the world.

The consumer will see the significance of the Mag's platform versatility and will make their choices accordingly.

[Jerhew]

Unlike many doomsayers out there who will disagree with me, I think that the Mag is still a very viable mechanical platform that can be given an upgrade path similar to the Cockers. Under the right circumstances, perhaps we might even see a revival once it's priced to compete with the A5's of the world.

The consumer will see the significance of the Mag's platform versatility and will make their choices accordingly.

here here brother...

some people tend to be narrowminded...(duh) and just see the mag platform as "old"
what they fail to see is that it was so far ahead of it's time...especially in terms of it's modular design...
the entire system(not to mention the lvl 10, rt/xvalve and just about anything else TK had his hands on) is nothing short of genius
and i really can't help but


that there is a new, mag based gun that's going to be able to compete with any high end electro on the market
and unlike any high end electro, if the electronic aspect of the gun fails...i can quickly and easily drop in mechanical components(possibly even pneumag components )and be back for the next game
sorry, but i can't help but cheerlead this thing to death