Crossfire Regs

[cledford]

Moving forward...

It's obvious that with the number of posts already that Jack-n-Coke hit on a winner for the first test candidate.

In my previous posts I've suggested 2 types of threads - a "working" thread and a sticky "final" product. This was to keep the final reports clean and easy to find. With the great discussion going on here maybe we need 3 types: general discussion related to a test (testing suggestion, testing theories, post-report discussion,and other administrative stuff like "who has an XYZ to use", etc) the "working" thread (where only test protocol and data is posted), and the final work ("sticky" to make it easy for outsiders to find) This would allow us to have a fairly "clean" thread related to the actual testing of a subject, with the discussion in another concise area (to keep it all easy to follow). I don't think that it's practical to have dozens and dozens of posts on a subject in the actual "working" thread - but all of the input is great! (Especially Doc's post) So, to me, it's obvious we need all 3 types.

Please give me some feed back on this - I tend to be an "organizer" and lean towards being very detail oriented and anal about neatness - I realize not everyone is the same way and don't want to seem like I'm trying to take over the whole forum.

This review (Crossfire) is going to be our first, so along the way we're building processes that'll make the subsequent projects much easier. That's what I'm aiming for with different "classes" of threads - a forum that serves us well and one that is easy to navigate for whoever comes to see what we're up to.

-Calvin

[cledford]

Does anyone already own a Crossfire system? I just want the patent number off of the reg to research it at the USPTO. With patents are drawings of the product and I'd like to see what the inside of the reg looks like.

It is my understanding that they are not user serviceable. That doesn't mean I won't be able to get into mine once I get it :) but I'd like to start checking it out now.

According to the designer (Chris Havlock) the key to the "consistency" is something that he referred to as a "floating chip" in the reg - which he claimed (and so does the video) is a patented design. He didn't have the patent number (weird) and started acting really suspicious since I was asking about it. (At this point I decided that it would be better to explain the situation later...) Anyhow, no local pro-shop has the product for sale and I've been unable to find an online dealer that actually STOCKS them.

If anyone has the patent number please post it.

Later this evening I'd like to start a discussion on the actual testing that we'd like to accomplish. I'll post another message to this thread with my ideas.

-Calvin

[BlackVCG]

Calvin-

Here's the patent for the new Crossfire.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6056006'.WKU.&OS=PN/6056006&RS=PN/6056006

[nerobro]

I forsee a simple solution to this...

Hooking the reg up to the gun dyno with a pressure sensor setup on it's output. Hook that up to a gun, preferably something disgustingly inefficant like a matrix (to stress the regs ability to recharge) And fire the gun. just like testing any other reg.

That is the only way I can forsee getting a definitive answer.

now... something funny I came across when at the IAO tech confrence. The guys at centerflag were adement that flow rate and recharge rate were two completely different things. And flow rate was the important number...

Logically speaking, to recharge quickly you need really high flow rate. But you coudl have a lot of flow with a lot of pressure drop. Being that we want our systems recharged all the way between shots... pressure recovery is the thing to test for....

that leads back to the test... we need a gun, and a sensor. And something to reccord the sensor's results.

This thread could go on forever so long as we don't get any hard data....

[Cristobal]

BlackVCG -- the link doesn't work, but I think you're talking about US6056006.

I found the same patent by looking on Have Blue's site. Here's what I posted in the New Forum caveat... thread:

From my post in the other thread

Looking on Have Blue's patently absurd page, I found this patent listed for the Crossfire reg: US6056006

Looking it up on the USPTO page I find that it lists the following:

United States Patent 6,056,006
Hagerty May 2, 2000

=Inventors: Hagerty; Phillip J. (Marshall, MI)
Assignee: Marshall Excelsior Company (Marshall, MI)
Appl. No.: 223099
Filed: December 30, 1998

It doesn't say Havlock, but in briefly skiming it I see it talks about some sort of "floating seal"

[Butterfingers]

Here are the tanks that I have available for comparison...

Nitro Duck SS4500

AA Raptor Rex

I suppose I can borrow a system X and other systems from Don.

I have a few testing suggestions...

Test Dropoff at 4500, 2500, 1500 psi tank pressure

Test Dropoff at 400, 800 psi output pressures

Let me know when we settle on a way to actually measure dropoff.

[TRIAD]

Send your tank into AA for 100 bucks they put on a raptor, 230 for a 'geddon, 250 for Apoc 2k

[Chupe]

has anyone used the 47/3000?

[cledford]

Let's get it on!

OK guys, I found a new Crossfire HP 68/4500 system online today. I will purchase it today and offer it up as the "test candidate."

I've made several posts and asked for some feedback about how to move forward. Obviously, we can't do much until the system arrives but plan. So lets get started - I would like some feedback to my suggestions in this thread and in the "Caveat" thread. Again, the process that we create with this review will be a good template for future endeavors.

Sometime today I will make the post I promised about my ideas for testing. The issue is that I know there are others out there with excellent ideas for conducting tests as well. WE NEED THOSE IDEAS!

Please post a process including equipment required and how you think the test should run. Even if the test isn't one that you can personally run - if you have an idea, please post a DETAILED description. I'd especially like to hear input by other table members.

This forum is a great idea and I'd like to see it start moving. We are waiting on the equipment, but that doesn't mean we can't start planning.

-Calvin

[Drizit]

i also have a crossfire 68/4500 that can be used for testing, however it would be best to keep it on this side of the border. it might not be a bad idea to test one that has seen some use, as the reg may brake down a bit after a while, as happens with the 32* reg. the reg was put on the tank at skyball this year, to replace at 32* reg that wouldn't recharge at more then about 1 ball every 2 seconds once the tank was below 2000psi so far the crossfire has kept up but we shal see what the test say.

[P8ntballerAK]

I have a imp;e way that just might work to measure flow. we will need a tube and a set of fins to hook up to the end of the tank. the tube will have to be big enough that the back pressure from opening the tank all the way up would be minimal. at the end of the tube set up the fins and make a paddle(like on a paddle boat) on one of the fins put a small piece of metal. after you open the tank the airflow will make the paddle start rotating, as it rotates the piece of metal on the one fin will contact another piece of metal and ad a number to the counter, the counter will determine how many RPM's the paddle is spinning, the tank with the faster RPM's will have the best flow.

[P8ntballerAK]

here is a simple yet crude way to measure recharge. we will need regulators to hook p to the end of the tanks. we willhave to find some way to put contacts on the regulator for a specific pressure. we start with the regulators closed so the psi = whatever we would like to test it at. then we reset the timeres and open the regulators the regulators. after we close the regulators off the timer starts and counts down until it meets the preset presure. once it hits that presure the contacts will meet and stop the timer. this will measure the recharge rate.

[Butterfingers]

I say we do the same test that crossfire did except this time with a faster gun.

Use the same oil filled gauges.

If we can prove that the crossfire tests were wrong or misleading using the same methods it will force them to explain themselves.

I have a reason to suspect the tests were done using diffrent tank pressures.

so we will test shootdown at various fill pressures 1000psi, 2000psi, 4500 psi ect...

[P8ntballerAK]

good point, I didnt specify what type of gauges for the simple fact that if the crossfire is to be tested as the "fastest flow rate" then we have to test other tanks as well to find out if thats true. I say try the same test with the top 5-10 air regs out there.

[AGD]

Guys,

The FIRST thing you do is get a written confirmation of what the product is supposed to do directly from the manufacturer. It is these claims that you will be testing against. If he claimed that they were the slowest recharging reg on the market we wouldn't be doing anything.

Then based on the claims, you formulate a strategy that gets posted here. Next the brilliant minds that surround this forum try to weasle why your test method isn't right or not conclusive. The manufacturer should be invited in on this.

After everyone has closed the testing loopholes someone does the test with someone ELSE watching for a second opinion. Then you post here and the fun begins.

As an example, here is a conversation I had with Nero:

tk: The Angel reg takes 9 sec to recharge (statement)
Ne: I can't believe that (skeptic)
Tk: See here it is on the Dyno (test)
Ne: Ok how does it work with a Palmer? (comparison)
Tk: see works fine (confirmation)
Ne: Well we have to test another angel to see if its the breed or just this one. (WEASLE loophole)
Tk: damn it I have to put the other one together... (me being a pain)
Tk: it does the same thing (more testing)
Ne: Your right (convincing outcome)