Angry Board - Why Bother...

[yakitori]

My Halo (V35) will already break paint if it's fragile. No need for even more pressure on the ball stack IMHO. Considering that even local tournaments are switching to some form of the 15bps rules spending even more for a faster board is a waste of money for me.

The angry doesnt put more pressure, it spins faster. Its easier on paint than the v35 is. It doesnt have a jam sequence either. If it mis senses a ball stack it flicker pulses instead of a hard steady jam sequence pulse like the z code.

Ive broken 0 balls in the loader w/ my angry through many cases. I can not say that for the z code.

[MonsterMag]

Why waist money on boards?
I have a stock Zcode board and it feeds 35-40bps
9 Volt modd
Motor mod (aftermarket motor , more power)
Cusom backplate and on/off button

Total cost comes out to around 25-30 bucks

[FallNAngel]

I have a stock Zcode board and it feeds 35-40bps

Show me it shooting 35-40bps and I'll believe it.

[Blazestorm]

Show it doing 25 on a gun with Hellfire or Team Inferno.

Until then. Shens. Yes I said it.

No loader is feeding past 25 on a gun EXCLUDING a q-loader.

No matter how fast you spin that drive-cone, no matter how much pressure you put on the stack, it will not shoot faster than 25 on a gun with paint.

[SlartyBartFast]

No matter how fast you spin that drive-cone, no matter how much pressure you put on the stack, it will not shoot faster than 25 on a gun with paint.

And that's the thing. If the loaders are capable of better, how do they overcome the stop/start of firing?

Yaki, it doesn't matter if you gradually get to 20bps or imediately get there. Unless there is increased pressure on the stack when you do so. Because at whatever speed you fire and no matter how you get there, balls have to go 0-X bps instantaneously.

WARPIG tests the loaders "out-of-the-box". Many of the videos available showing faster have modified settings or increased tensions. Most of the numbers for the videos and claims are for very limited time samples.

As I said previously, tests with strings of 100 would be interesting with percentages shot and average bps for a set bps input would be interesting and probably more informative. More varied testing would be interesting. But, unlikely to happen.

[billmi]

They basically did a good job of measuring the varience between two loaders w/ different springs and measured the acceleration of each spring after being preloaded. Its funny to me that they replaced the motors in both loaders to measure the spring tensions/drive cones acceleration.

No, that is not true. One loader was used the only difference was the board.

The loader was rebuilt, prior to the test with a brand new motor, to ensure that both boards would be able to deliver peak performance.

Had they been separate loaders, the reference there would be in plural, rather than singular. That means the difference in feeding came from the board, since it was the variable.

A stock HALO drive cone has 5 slots, each capable of holding 2 paintballs. Because of the half-pipe that draws the paint off the cone, and a blocker that keeps balls from falling into the area immediatly adjacent to the half-pipe, a full preload is limited to 4 of the sections, or 8 balls. In operation, the preload is rarely more than half (this is easy to check, when the loader is on, after a few shots have fired, manually put some additionall loading and see how far it has left available to turn.) That explains how the board could make a difference in a 10 shot string.

I do think it would be interesting to see how the performance is affected in longer strings. Some loaders might not handle longer strings, as well as others.

I also think it would be interesting if instead of starting at a dead stop, the rate of fire ramped up, closer to the way it does when a player starts ripping a string, especially if they are using a ramping mode. I suspect that hoppers like the Egg and Apache would rank better in a test like that. The pre-loaded spring of the HALO means that the electronics can take longer to react without causing a skipped second or third shot in the string. Of course, that also is an advantage to the HALO design. If anything, the more test data I see, the more I am convinced there's not such thing as a true "max bps" number for a loader, because even putting the same loader on different paintguns, the performance is different, and different types of tests will yeild different results.

In my view that doesn't make tests "stupid." The problem comes in when people are trying to compare the performance of two loaders (or boards) based on the results of different type of tests (an on gun test vs. a drop test for example,) or to say that someone's loader could never shoot at XX bps, because in one set of test criteria, it didn't handle that speed.

If a Brand-X loader is on an eye controlled gun set to fire when a ball is fed, and out of 100 shots 5 or 6 pairs were 1/30th of a second a part, but the average were 1/20th of a second apart, and 10 pairs were 1/14th of a second a part, how fast is that loader? Is it a 30 bps loader, a 20 bps loader or a 14 bps loader? Or are all of those numbers wrong, since in that test the gun is waiting to react to the loader, instead of the loader reacting to the gun, which is what we see in normal operation. I would say the numbers are all good to know, because they give more information about different aspects of the loader's operation.

All things considered I think it might be more usefull to suggest test criteria that better models on field use than to simply call someone's efforts stupid, especially when making an argument based on a failed understanding the difference between the singular and plural forms of the word loader.

I remember warpig saying that halos only feed about 15bps based on a drop test. ya thats real cool.

I believe you're also wrong about that as well.

[yakitori]

youre not getting it. It doesnt matter if they used new motors or not.

Given the design of a halo/reloader B being that they have a spring loaded stack tension design, based on the criteria that WARPIG described they performed, they didnt even measure the boards activity. They basically measured the spring tensions activity.

You can preload about 15 balls w/ the rip drive, and all of that feeding is done by the spring itself and has nothing to do w/ the board or motor. And when you measure bursts of 10 balls no matter at what speed you are cycling at, you are only measuring those balls that have been preloaded by the spring.

Like slarty said, for a real difference you would need to design a test that allowed for motor spin time, and activation of the motor by the board. And bursts of 10 balls is not gonna do the trick. Seriously, think about the physics and mechanics involved on how a halo works, and how they did their tests. They way they described their test methods proves nothing but the acceleration of a ball stack of 10 balls based on a preloaded spring.

you would need MANY more trials and a lot longer strings to get an idea of the difference.

And actually in scientific research to hold one variable to test for another, you would not have used two separate loaders, you would have tested one board in the same loader as you test the other board in. That will negate any variance in the subtle mechanical differences between two different loaders. And that subtle difference could mean 1 bps difference.

Like I said, most non-scientific ppl will believe any data that looks halfway scientific. Its a bad design like it or not. Id like to see the same test done w/ two q loaders. maybe even more. Ill bet you could see differnces even between two of the same brand loaders.

You could likely achieve the same results given 4 test groups.

1. z code board
2. angry board
3. cheetah board
4. no board w/ rip drive only

Based on their test design. Think about it. Seriously. read how they did their test and disect it. Then think about how a halo operates mechanically. Then what did they measure?

They should find a way to measure the speed after allowing 15-20 balls pass, then that would give time for the motor to sping and keep the spring tensioned.

Im going to agree with blazestorm here. Halos design only allows for about 25bps or so speed. There can be bursts higher, and I know Zman got 32 or so w/ the V35 board, but SUSTAINED speeds will vary. Thats because the halo feeds on spring tension. Even when the motor spins, its function is to catch up to the ball stack and keep them preloaded. Once the stack is moving as fast as the motor is spinning, the only other force applied is that of the spring tension, which wont be much.

[Lohman446]

warpig is stupid. .

youre not getting it

Neither are you. On this forum we discuss things, with considered ideas and statements, not with direct attacks on other members. Are there flaws in almost any test? Most definetly, but those flaws can be pointed out and discussed, as well as alternate testing methods without attacks on one of the leading testers of paintball equipment. Don't like a test, thats fine, discuss that test and ways to improve, ideas on what that data may show. Do not attack the tester, especially one with a reputation as outstanding as Warpig. Yeh, you can sit on the computer and tell us about better testing methods all day, many of us could. When it comes down to it is Bill that actually takes the time, effort, and resources to do testing. The greatest "theoretical" is worthless when compared to even flawed and unbiased recordered testing attempting to gather useful data.

[yakitori]

ya, that was harsh words, but you also have to think that a organization as renouned as warpig is poorly designing tests and releasing information based on those tests to a large number of paintballers. If so, that information should be well designed to accurate test what they are trying to show. In this case it is not.

Warpig is not stupid as a whole, but in this case they didnt do a very good job in proving anything, except that many paintballers will believe and repeat information that is inaccurate based on some halfass scientific study. Thats the bottomline.

And there is nothing wrong with not getting it. Hell, I dont get a lot of things, and I dont get offended when someone says youre not getting it if Im not. Seriously, if someone is to refute a discussion based on the information, they should at least know what the other person is describing. In this case, they didnt.

scientist do research. Scientist take criticism, and use that to modify or correct things that others have ponited out in their work, or design. That is what peer reviewing is. Im not dismissing anyones hard work and efforts, I think its great. I also think that with some input, it can be modified to show real results of differnces between the boards BEFORE it gets out into the message boards where ppl go around spreading information that is inaccurate based on that work.

[yakitori]

ok, my bad, warpig is not stupid. At all. They are one of the few that actually tests things that ppl are wondering.

This particular test though has some flaws.

[Caffiend]

And actually in scientific research to hold one variable to test for another, you would not have used two separate loaders, you would have tested one board in the same loader as you test the other board in. That will negate any variance in the subtle mechanical differences between two different loaders. And that subtle difference could mean 1 bps difference.

They did use one loader, Billmi (or Bill Mills who is WARPIG) said that about two posts above yours.

One loader was used the only difference was the board.

[billmi]

They basically measured the spring tensions activity.

You can preload about 15 balls w/ the rip drive, and all of that feeding is done by the spring itself and has nothing to do w/ the board or motor. And when you measure bursts of 10 balls no matter at what speed you are cycling at, you are only measuring those balls that have been preloaded by the spring.

That is not true. The drive cone can only hold 8 balls at a time, and it can not be pre-loaded more than one turn. It is impossible to pre-load spring tension on more than 8 balls in the HALO manually. In operation, the HALO doesn't even pre-load spring tension on that much, as it rarely goes past 50% of its pre-load capability.

Like slarty said, for a real difference you would need to design a test that allowed for motor spin time, and activation of the motor by the board. And bursts of 10 balls is not gonna do the trick.

Seriously, think about the physics and mechanics involved on how a halo works, and how they did their tests. They way they described their test methods proves nothing but the acceleration of a ball stack of 10 balls based on a preloaded spring.

That is simply not true. Think about the physics and mechanics involved on how a HALO works. The drive cone can't pre-load more than one turn (it actually can't even make a full rotation, and when you account for the raceway tube and the blocker next to it, it hold's 8 balls. Under full pre-load (which the electronics don't do) the HALO can't spring feed 10 balls.

you would need MANY more trials and a lot longer strings to get an idea of the difference.

I would not at all be surprised if longer strings could show a greater difference.

And actually in scientific research to hold one variable to test for another, you would not have used two separate loaders, you would have tested one board in the same loader as you test the other board in. That will negate any variance in the subtle mechanical differences between two different loaders. And that subtle difference could mean 1 bps difference.

I think you missed both what the review said, and what I quoted to you in my previous post. It says "loader" and "motor" not "loders" and "motors." Both loader and motor are singular words. Their plural version of them has an s at the end. I agree with you that testing multiple loaders would not isolate down to the single variable, however the article describes a single loader being used with both boards.

Like I said, most non-scientific ppl will believe any data that looks halfway scientific. Its a bad design like it or not. Id like to see the same test done w/ two q loaders. maybe even more. Ill bet you could see differnces even between two of the same brand loaders.

You could likely achieve the same results given 4 test groups.

1. z code board
2. angry board
3. cheetah board
4. no board w/ rip drive only

Based on their test design. Think about it. Seriously. read how they did their test and disect it. Then think about how a halo operates mechanically. Then what did they measure?

The same test set-up and method showed a HALO Victory achieving 3 bps better 10 shot strings than a standard HALO.

They should find a way to measure the speed after allowing 15-20 balls pass, then that would give time for the motor to sping and keep the spring tensioned.

But what good is it to not count the first shots as well? If you are shooting your gun on the field, and the first shots don't feed right, the shots 15 to 20 later are going to be hooking and breaking in the barrel from shell and paint.

Im going to agree with blazestorm here. Halos design only allows for about 25bps or so speed. There can be bursts higher, and I know Zman got 32 or so w/ the V35 board, but SUSTAINED speeds will vary. Thats because the halo feeds on spring tension. Even when the motor spins, its function is to catch up to the ball stack and keep them preloaded. Once the stack is moving as fast as the motor is spinning, the only other force applied is that of the spring tension, which wont be much.

If the stack is moving at the same speed as the motor, then the spring is not flexing. How does the spring apply force without flexing?

[SlartyBartFast]

I believe you're also wrong about that as well.

Great post Bill. And great work on the tests. Does the marker used have eyes?

[yakitori]

That is not true. The drive cone can only hold 8 balls at a time, and it can not be pre-loaded more than one turn. It is impossible to pre-load spring tension on more than 8 balls in the HALO manually. In operation, the HALO doesn't even pre-load spring tension on that much, as it rarely goes past 50% of its pre-load capability.


When I loaded balls in my angry halo, and turned it on and stopped the ball stack, then turned the loader off. That preloads the balls, you can do the same w/ the rip drive manually. I counted 14 balls that came out. I understand that some are not under tension though. If you are doing your tests by putting balls in the loader, and turning it on, and doing a 10 shot burst, then at least 80% of the balls will be fed by the spring and drive cone ALONE. Im sorry bill, but you got it wrong on that one. Anyone who has a halo can do that for themself.

That is simply not true. Think about the physics and mechanics involved on how a HALO works. The drive cone can't pre-load more than one turn (it actually can't even make a full rotation, and when you account for the raceway tube and the blocker next to it, it hold's 8 balls. Under full pre-load (which the electronics don't do) the HALO can't spring feed 10 balls.


Thats inaccurate, if the drive cone and catchcup hold a total of 10 balls, and 14 come out upon preload, then it has to go more than one complete revolution upon preload. I see what you mean about the feedneck using gravity to remove the last few balls from the feedneck. W/ a full loader you still wouldnt be able to calculate the speed of the board, which is what you are trying to show. And YOU think about it. you just said 8 balls are preloaded. How is that good design to take 10 ball feeding ability then? 80% of the feeding is done by the cone itself. Im sure that 1bps or even 3bps is still w/in your margin of error w/ your test design.

I would not at all be surprised if longer strings could show a greater difference.


agreed. But you are convincing ppl that a product is not worthy of purchase and is a waste of money based on bad test results. And that is bad for business.


I think you missed both what the review said, and what I quoted to you in my previous post. It says "loader" and "motor" not "loders" and "motors." Both loader and motor are singular words. Their plural version of them has an s at the end. I agree with you that testing multiple loaders would not isolate down to the single variable, however the article describes a single loader being used with both boards.

maybe, but that is moot point.

The same test set-up and method showed a HALO Victory achieving 3 bps better 10 shot strings than a standard HALO.


And it showed how many breaks per hopper? And it showed that 80% of the acceleration was done by the spring and drive cone. That may only mean a faster response by the victory than the stock board, only to catch up to the spring tension.


But what good is it to not count the first shots as well? If you are shooting your gun on the field, and the first shots don't feed right, the shots 15 to 20 later are going to be hooking and breaking in the barrel from shell and paint.


Balls dont hook and break w/ eyes. And the angry is more gentle on paint than the zcode or victory. And the point of your test was to determine if there was a feeding difference based on the BOARDS function. 80% of which your results were based off of the spring tension.

If the stack is moving at the same speed as the motor, then the spring is not flexing. How does the spring apply force without flexing?


The spring is flexing ALWAYS. That force is ALWAYS applied to the ball stack. In addition to that force the motor spins to maintain a preload on the balls, w/ bursts of higher ROF when the motor reaches the end of a preload and pushes balls in at the rate the motor is spinning. And that varies based on the speed that you are shooting. You have 2 forces acting on the stack, both can be independent of one another, or occur simultaneously.

points made. ya, great post. I was able to see how bad the test was in more depth.

actually slarty you are the wrong one. You come spewing anti-hype misinformation about a board that even the site that did the test said themself, that it doesnt determine the max speed capability of the board, yet you spray it like they said not to.

[SlartyBartFast]

points made. ya, great post. I was able to see how bad the test was in more depth.

actually slarty you are the wrong one. You come spewing anti-hype misinformation about a board that even the site that did the test said themself, that it doesnt determine the max speed capability of the board, yet you spray it like they said not to.