Why the Use of LP Solenoids?

[Twiek]

Twiek, man, you're right, I'm totally missing the principals here.

Your common knowledge picked up from paintball forums has far outstripped all of what I have learned in my engineering classes. Compressible flow and fluid dynamics < AO

I swear, there is no roll eyes smiley big enough for this one.

I quit. There is no amount of explaining that I can do to change anyone's minds here, so I am done trying.

If anyone needs me, I will be setting over in the corner with my fingers in my ears, repeating over and over again "Its just an internet forum, walk away.", "Its just and internet forum, walk away." . . . . . .

Wow, there seems to be a lot of this on this forum, "I'm right because I learned it in a classroom," and "your wrong because you don't know what you're talking about."

But since you know all about me, my education, my experience and knowledge of paintball, and even what groups of people I participate in discussions with, I guess I don't need to tell you.

Furthermore, I didn't totally disagree with you. If you lessen the losses of a particular system, it will be more effecient. This is what AKA has done with the Viking, Excalibur, and Merlin.

However, as I said in my previous post, a marker can still be highly effecient at high pressures, and I gave examples as such. Scientific discovery always outstrips theory. If you know that Item A is true and Item B is true from scientific experimentation, but Theory X says that Item B is false, then Theory X is wrong. You yourself even stated that the "LP theory" hinges on the "common knowledge" fact that all markers end up with 60 psi behind the ball. I can tell that you're incorrectly applying some of the theory, and some of your stated "facts" are simply (and experimentally proven) wrong.

[CoolHand]

. . . However, as I said in my previous post, a marker can still be highly effecient at high pressures, and I gave examples as such. Scientific discovery always outstrips theory. If you know that Item A is true and Item B is true from scientific experimentation, but Theory X says that Item B is false, then Theory X is wrong. You yourself even stated that the "LP theory" hinges on the "common knowledge" fact that all markers end up with 60 psi behind the ball. I can tell that you're incorrectly applying some of the theory, and some of your stated "facts" are simply (and experimentally proven) wrong.

No where in that did I say that a high pressure marker cannot be efficient, look at any 12g pumper. I said, give all things being equal in a system, the lower pressure it will run at, the higher the efficiency (without changing dwell, or chamber sizes, but still getting the energy needed to shoot the ball 290 fps).

You need to read more, and have a little smaller chip on your shoulder. Book learnin' ain't bad, but it is far more useful than those without it would like to believe. I cite no "facts" real or imagined above. I simply layed out an argument based on what every single person uses as their trump card when the age old "LP myth" argument arises. Call it debunking.

Also, the assertion that poppet valves are "efficient" at many pressures is false. For any one valve, there will be a pressure at which it performs its best. One pressure. Above or below that mark, it will still work effectively, but it will not perform at 100%. What you call "efficient" is really just accpetable efficiency, and all that means is that the valve is still working in the envelope around its optimum pressure. That is why the Viking is so effiecent, but a 'cocker is not quite so good. The Vik is running where they designed it to, while the 'cocker is generally not.

Like I said before, if you can't wrap your mind around it, I can really help you. Everyone here likes to spout about "scientific" this or that, until they really have to apply it.

[Twiek]

I said, give all things being equal in a system, the lower pressure it will run at, the higher the efficiency (without changing dwell, or chamber sizes, but still getting the energy needed to shoot the ball 290 fps).

You can't keep all things equal in a system and expect it to operate at a lower pressure than previously. You're changing something in order for it to still reach a certain velocity at a different pressure. In AKA's design philosophy, that means increased port sizes, better gas routing, etc. which is a sound way of decreasing operating pressure and increasing effeciency. But not all changes that lower the pressure increase effeciency, and not all changes that increase effeciency lower pressure.

Also, the assertion that poppet valves are "efficient" at many pressures is false. For any one valve, there will be a pressure at which it performs its best. One pressure. Above or below that mark, it will still work effectively, but it will not perform at 100%. What you call "efficient" is really just accpetable efficiency, and all that means is that the valve is still working in the envelope around its optimum pressure. That is why the Viking is so effiecent, but a 'cocker is not quite so good. The Vik is running where they designed it to, while the 'cocker is generally not.

I never said any one valve will work perfectly at a variety of pressures, I said "poppet valves are effecient (at any pressure)" i.e. poppet valves in general. Yes, I know all about "sweet spotting" a valve.

A 'cocker can be as effecient as a Viking (if not more effecient). What most people do, though, is install a super light valve spring to lower the operating pressure and then slap loads of aftermarket parts in, thinking that "LP is more effecient". A 'cocker is an HP marker, no mistake, designed when CO2 was the only available gas source and nobody knew what LP meant. 'Cockers are therefore (typically) more effecient at higher pressures.

You need to read more, and have a little smaller chip on your shoulder. Book learnin' ain't bad, but it is far more useful than those without it would like to believe.

Again, you're making assumptions about someone you don't at all know.

Like I said before, if you can't wrap your mind around it, I can really help you. Everyone here likes to spout about "scientific" this or that, until they really have to apply it.

Wow, talk about a chip on your sholder. I don't know who's more condecending, you or RR.

Unless you haven't already figured it out through the subtle hints I've been giving you thus far, I'm not some blithering idiot that dropped out of high school and reads PBN to get all his facts. But I don't feel I have to tell you my education level, the classes I've taken, the positions I've held, what qualifications I have, what markers I own, etc. to get a point across. I'd like to think that arguments stand on their own merit, and not on the education level of the person giving them.

[Maggot6]

He he, twiek and coolhands argument is entertaining me...But anyways, a question for coolhand...

The reason the Mag needs to have 850 psi to the valve is because of the extraordinarily small passasges and transitions that are used inside the valve. A lot of the energy brought into the valve is wasted on shock losses

So, does that mean if you magically made a mag's passeges like 5x the size, it would run at a lower pressure?

[Chronobreak]

He he, twiek and coolhands argument is entertaining me...But anyways, a question for coolhand...



So, does that mean if you magically made a mag's passeges like 5x the size, it would run at a lower pressure?

yes but it would be 5x+ as big

too ways of doing things= HP and small holes/ports/routing or (small volume)

LP=and large holes and ports etc (large voulme)

make sence?

[CoolHand]

. . . . . Again, you're making assumptions about someone you don't at all know. . . . .

And once again, it is you who is assuming, and once again, it is you who is not seeing what I am talking about.

If you haven't gotten it by now, you're not going to.

I don't know you, and really, I don't care. I am talking about something in general, in a theoretical sense, and you come in, apply what I said to two markers that aren't equal, and that I just referred to in passing, and then simply smile and say I'm wrong.

You're not listening, and I don't care enough to waste any more time on you.

Go on thinking whatever you want to, say you won the argument, say I don't know jack, say whatever you want to. I just don't care.

When will I learn to just stop posting here . . . . . . . .

[Twiek]

And once again, it is you who is assuming, and once again, it is you who is not seeing what I am talking about.

If you haven't gotten it by now, you're not going to.

I don't know you, and really, I don't care. I am talking about something in general, in a theoretical sense, and you come in, apply what I said to two markers that aren't equal, and that I just referred to in passing, and then simply smile and say I'm wrong.

You're not listening, and I don't care enough to waste any more time on you.

Go on thinking whatever you want to, say you won the argument, say I don't know jack, say whatever you want to. I just don't care.

When will I learn to just stop posting here . . . . . . . .

The cop-out defence.... pretty much impenetrable

What exactly is it that I'm "missing"? You make a point, I make a counter-point. This is how discussions proceed. Or do I not "get it" simply because I disagree with you