New valve idea?

[Lohman446]

...what?? remember, the air on the ball shoots it at 280 FPS. that same pressure would be applied on the next ball in the feed tube, shooting it back into the hopper. if its kept in the same place, all your balls will be crushed. either that or the hopper itself will break. also that pressure on the ball BACK UP into the feed tube would drasitcally decrease the feed rate, as the hopper would have to overcome that pressure and then push the ball into the breech. that would require an even stronger force fed hopper, which would mean there is even MORE force on the ball pushing it down, while there is force from the air pushing the ball up. This would create many problems, and have only a slight advantage. it would be a much better idea to simply have a solenoid activate a ram behind the feed neck that pushes a piece of metal through a slot to close the breech. you could even lower the pressure enough to make it pinch balls. and you could probably use a cocker board with slightly modified software, since there would be two noids.

Interesting thought but I think you are overdramatizing the air effect here. The air will travel the path of least resistance (I think) and that would be pushing the ball past the detents and out the barrel. Although there would be some pressure on the "sealing" ball I think you are thinking it will be more than it actually would be - I think. (yeh, try to figure that sentence out).

I had considered a "door" of some type, but was concerned with it causing more problems then a bolt would.

What about a "rotating" feed system - like the A-5 uses. You could make it so each "cylinder" sealed off the breech area and yet balls from the loader would just drop in when they were not ceiling. Or perhaps like the Omens cam feed system.

[slade]

Interesting thought but I think you are overdramatizing the air effect here. The air will travel the path of least resistance (I think) and that would be pushing the ball past the detents and out the barrel. Although there would be some pressure on the "sealing" ball I think you are thinking it will be more than it actually would be - I think. (yeh, try to figure that sentence out).

I had considered a "door" of some type, but was concerned with it causing more problems then a bolt would.

What about a "rotating" feed system - like the A-5 uses. You could make it so each "cylinder" sealed off the breech area and yet balls from the loader would just drop in when they were not ceiling. Or perhaps like the Omens cam feed system.

it wont push against the ball in the feed tube quite as much as the one in the barrel, but there still will be a lot of pressure on it, causing lower feed rates, with the possibility for a lot of breaks and the chance of breaking your hopper. plus it would be more inefficient and less consistant.

there certainly could be problems with a "door", but they would be far fewer than with the ball sealing the feed tube. plus there would be many advantages. the door would weigh MUCH less than a bolt, so there would be much less reciprocating mass, meaning less kick, plus since there is less weight to move the operating pressure can be greatly lowered, meaning no chops, only pinches. you could write code and set up a system to detect if the trap door is closed (maybe a microswitch), and if it is not closed (meaning it is pinching a ball) the solenoid controlling the hp air would not fire, and the "trap door" solenoid would cycle again, letting the ball fall into the chamber unharmed.

thats actually a great idea. take the A-5 loading system, modify it to have it seal the breach after each round is loaded, and then put it on an electropneumatic marker, with a solenoid that just releases air after the breech is closed. doing that would most likely lower the ROF though, since it is a more complex sequence. and the bulk of the A-5 loading system would keep it off the tourney scene, but it could sell very well to woodsballers.

[Lohman446]

Rather than being horizontal to the marker could this rotating breech be vertical? I mean, you only need one to drop from the hopper to the breech, it would make the marker marginally taller - though if we had something like the ATS system... or the second warp feed design.


The second warp feed design, the "chain" type one. Each section of the chain could fully seal the breech - you would be tottally gone with chops, for one each ball would be individual, and well - there would be no bolt to chop anything.

[Jazkal]

I've seen mention of some older markers that use this, but not of the newest. It's called the "Alien". It's been "coming soon" for about 2years or so.

Here are some schematics.

[Jakedubbleya]

solutions

ball valve... balls drop in, but air closes valve, not too complex.

another more unrefined way of doing this would be to branch a hose behind a springloaded gate that seals off the breach, now it closes when u fire, simple.

either those ways or complicate it by integrating a gate with the eye, which is already being done on one marker i read about, the alien.... strang looking thing...

benefits would be extreme, no kick from the striker or bolt, and ability to shape the hose so that it jets onto the ball in a genuine venturi fashion, meaning no more ball distortion problems.

imagine how small you could make these things.... it would be like literally attaching a tank to a grip and a barrel.

the future of paintball: grips with integrated compressors attached to hoses, attached to barrels and hoppers lol.

(funny how we tend to progress backwards when it comes to paintball lol.)

[Lohman446]

And the other benefit... no bolt to chop a ball - my original conceived benefit of the idea

[Cougar]

I'm pretty sure The assault 80's don't use a bolt. They use some sort of trap door and air.

The Assault 80 is a spool valve, just like a shocker and trix.

["the FitZ"]

How about having your air/fuel injector be activated by the bolt after it has sealed .

Maybe have a spring push the bolt forward but electrically deliver the air to the ball. Isn't that kinda like an Impulse or something?

[Lohman446]

How about having your air/fuel injector be activated by the bolt after it has sealed .

Maybe have a spring push the bolt forward but electrically deliver the air to the ball. Isn't that kinda like an Impulse or something?

lets make a 'cocker - where the bolt moves forward with air and seals the breach, and then an injector opens and delivers the air?

[Jakedubbleya]

Ugh whats the point tho?

[thefool]

Heres an idea. The key to closing the breech is to get something in between two balls. This ussually resulting in pinching. Why not just have an extended trigger to go all the way up to the breech. Seeing as it's a lever, it would lift the ball up and leave you space to put the trap door without worring about pincing. The only thing that would ever touch the balls would be your slow moving trigger lever.

[Maggot6]

So "thefool" basically your saying that you have something that looks kinda like a zgrip, but has a much longer trigger. So that it can lift the ball and then close the other side? Kinda seems like you'd need a warp feed body or something for that.

[thefool]

I wouldnt be talking about mags, just a gun in theory. And no, no "special" bodys, just a costom built one beacause it would be a very costom gun. You could make the trigger lift by makeing it have a shape like this -l_ turned 90 degrees counterclockwise. it would have a hole in the feed neck where the special trigger could push the ball up to make room for the sliding door.
The only disadvatage is that it wouldnt work with high pressure force feed hoppers.

[SlartyBartFast]

benefits would be extreme, no kick from the striker or bolt, and ability to shape the hose so that it jets onto the ball in a genuine venturi fashion, meaning no more ball distortion problems.

Ahh. But all of those "problems" are myths. Or at least have never been shown to exist.

Plus the annoying use of 'venturi' out of context.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ary&va=venturi

Show that the idea has merit before wasting time and money designing a new firing mechanism.

Changing a gun from closed to open bolt has been shown not to affect accuracy. So the "slamming" effect seems disproven.

If boltless has any accuracy advantage, firing a cocker at a low rate of fire should be superior to firing an "open-bolt" at slow rates of fire. I'm willing to bet that you'd find no difference.

[Lohman446]

If boltless has any accuracy advantage, firing a cocker at a low rate of fire should be superior to firing an "open-bolt" at slow rates of fire. I'm willing to bet that you'd find no difference.

But what about less kick at high rates of fire? Sure the marker is still just as accurate when vise shot, but what about when shot in the real world? Wouldn't less kick allow quicker and more precise target reaquisition times, and quicker follow up shots? Or is the point that there is so little kick anyways that benefits would be nearly intangiable? I do see the logical argument to that...