How many times can an autococker cycle per second?

[nerobro]

*nods* makes sence. I was running on the assumption that the biggest restriction was the hose and barbs. Is the restriction in the quickswitch the hoses and barbs? How about some of the competing 4 ways? I have the CFM ratings of the electronic valves I bought. the passages inside them seem to be larger than the holes in my 10/32 barbs..

As for the rock, I called and spoke to craig last week. I have decided I'm not goign to try to fix it myself ;-) The safety relief valve is activating way to low.

ps. I'm the guy from the IAO who picked up craigs blazer and proceeded to shortstroke it. :-) I was wearing a blue jersey with a Bunkerhard Logo on the front.

[nicad]

Originally posted by ES13Raven
... Micro Rock was at 85psi.

I'm sure that adding another QEV to the front port will increase speed as well, but I didn't install one on purpose. I wanted to keep the force of the bolt softer ...

85psi and your concerned about softness on the bolt? yeah ok... typeo?

installing another QEV on the closing side of the ram will not change the force of which the ram operates...

out!

[the electrician]

I used to run just one QEV on the mounting head port of the ram, but after further yesting, I realized that it actually increased the speed at which the ram was able to change directions and any added momentum didn't really make any difference in the force in which the bolt hit the ball. I'm able to cycle at a high rate while only creating 3 lbs(calculated) of force on the bolt. that's a ANS 5/16" bore cylinder at 40 psi. it'll get 15 bps in full auto(only used for testing mind you), no skips, no chops, no ACE, no problem.

the QEVs have made a noticeable difference.

[ES13Raven]

Originally posted by nicad
85psi and your concerned about softness on the bolt? yeah ok... typeo?

installing another QEV on the closing side of the ram will not change the force of which the ram operates...

I never said I was going to keep it at that pressure.....

That was just the pressure used to get the 7ms

I plan on running the Open around 15ms, and having the LPR at a much lower pressure Colin :)

[Paladin]

Originally posted by nerobro
*nods* makes sence. I was running on the assumption that the biggest restriction was the hose and barbs. Is the restriction in the quickswitch the hoses and barbs? How about some of the competing 4 ways? I have the CFM ratings of the electronic valves I bought. the passages inside them seem to be larger than the holes in my 10/32 barbs..

We make our own barbs and with a bit different specs than most that are used or available. It only takes a few thousandths of an inch to make a big difference. (rule: if you double the size of port/passage you quadruple the amount of flow)
As to "competing 4-ways": I'm not inclined to discuss the details of why they might not be able to keep up. Hose barbs are just part of the picture.
Also, some of the multi-way electronic valves that we have looked at, don't seem to provide flow equal to their rated specs when under the load of high speed operation.

Originally posted by nerobro

As for the rock, I called and spoke to craig last week. I have decided I'm not goign to try to fix it myself ;-) The safety relief valve is activating way to low.

Sorry about that, I wish I could say it was the first time to happen. It will be taken care of and turned around here in a day or so.

Originally posted by nerobro

ps. I'm the guy from the IAO who picked up craigs blazer and proceeded to shortstroke it. :-) I was wearing a blue jersey with a Bunkerhard Logo on the front.

Oh yea,,, sure, I remember you now.

[ES13Raven]

Originally posted by nicad
installing another QEV on the closing side of the ram will not change the force of which the ram operates...

If you installed one on the opening side, but not on the closing side....

Couldn't you turn down the LPR to get the same force on the cocking stroke, but now less force on the loading stroke?

Doesn't the cocking stroke now have less friction and resistance, but the loading stroke still have the friction and resistance due to the "cushion" of air behind the Ram piston that can't be expelled as fast?

I know you guys are saying that it just changes direction faster, but isn't the bolt force effected if you can lower the LPR to get the same speed?

It seems to me that doing it this way would be easier on paint....

[nerobro]

Originally posted by Paladin
We make our own barbs and with a bit different specs than most that are used or available. It only takes a few thousandths of an inch to make a big difference. (rule: if you double the size of port/passage you quadruple the amount of flow)

This begs the question, is most hoses ID larger than your barbs? Has anyone done any testing with multiple hoses hooked up to a single 4 way. Such as with the dual ram cockers? It would be interesting to see if that has any benifit, especially with dump valves.

As to "competing 4-ways": I'm not inclined to discuss ...
Also, some of the multi-way electronic valves that we have looked at, don't seem to provide flow equal to their rated specs when under the load of high speed operation.

So is that why you like the centerflag solution in comparison to the racegun, f5, or eclipse solutions?

*grumbles something about people knowing the data and not being able to share it* Fear of litigation is the greatest anoyance in my life, as it seems to be the largest block of data in the industry.

As for the reg, I picked it up used, and it could well be nearly a decade old now. It's served me well, along with my stab.

Oh yea,,, sure, I remember you now.

See I was expecting the "Oh my god not that *long string of explatives* stupid kid who can't shoot a blazer. ;-) The guys I was with said you seriously cringed when I did that.

[Paladin]

Originally posted by nerobro

This begs the question, is most hoses ID larger than your barbs?

Yes, that is probably true to some degree, especially when the hose is under pressure.

Originally posted by nerobro

Has anyone done any testing with multiple hoses hooked up to a single 4 way. Such as with the dual ram cockers? It would be interesting to see if that has any benifit, especially with dump valves.

From what I've seen, dual rams cannot be of any benifit to the cycling speed. Higher flow potential of extra hoses could make a single ram faster if applied properly. That is IF the 4-way provided enough flow to accomodate that setup.

Originally posted by nerobro

So is that why you like the centerflag solution in comparison to the racegun, f5, or eclipse solutions?

For the Blazer, yes indeed.

Originally posted by nerobro

*grumbles something about people knowing the data and not being able to share it* Fear of litigation is the greatest anoyance in my life, as it seems to be the largest block of data in the industry.

"Fear of litigation" has nothing to do with my refusal to discuss the details of others' designs in comparison to my own. On the other hand, why should I continue to show my competitors how to improve on their products, only to have them attempt to torpedo my stuff in the marketplace?

Originally posted by nerobro

See I was expecting the "Oh my god not that *long string of explatives* stupid kid who can't shoot a blazer. ;-) The guys I was with said you seriously cringed when I did that.

Sorry that I didn't fulfill your expectations.
You certainly aren't the only one to "short stroke" a gun that they aren't used to.
My typical comment to something like that is usually something along the lines of; "It is not electronic, so please shoot the gun in your hand instead of the one in your bag" and "first worry about right before getting too concerned about rapid." If I "cringe" it is out of simple frustration. If you try hard enough, you can screw up just about anything.

[nerobro]

Originally posted by Paladin
From what I've seen, dual rams cannot be of any benifit to the cycling speed. Higher flow potential of extra hoses could make a single ram faster if applied properly. That is IF the 4-way provided enough flow to accomodate that setup.

I must be phrasing things terriably :-) Maybe you're just used to people with a poor understanding of things coming to you. I do the same thing when i talk to people about computers. I assume no understanding untill proven otherwise.

What I was thinking was to take a quickram and quickswitch and tap additional holes on them to attempt to get the ram to move quicker. Not to use two rams. That would defeat the purpose by requireing more volume ;-) Could the quickswitch handle it?

"Fear of litigation" has nothing to do with my refusal to discuss the details of others' designs in comparison to my own. On the other hand, why should I continue to show my competitors how to improve on their products, only to have them attempt to torpedo my stuff in the marketplace?

Point taken. I've never thought of it that way before. Though my rant was more of a general one. There's a company or two who has tested the equipment but won't show the results.

Sorry that I didn't fulfill your expectations.
You certainly aren't the only one to "short stroke" a gun that they aren't used to.
My typical comment to something like that is usually something along the lines of; "It is not electronic, so please shoot the gun in your hand instead of the one in your bag" ... If I "cringe" it is out of simple frustration. If you try hard enough, you can screw up just about anything.

I came up saying I loved blazers ;-) Heck I still do.. I just can't shoot a 2 finger trigger blazer, or mag, or hinge cocker for the life of me. Something about swinging 2 finger triggers just doesn't work for me. I didn't even own an electrogun untill after I had embarassed myself trying to shoot that blazer.

At least when I put my finger on just the top spot on the trigger I was able to do it right!

[Paladin]

Originally posted by nerobro

I must be phrasing things terriably :-) Maybe you're just used to people with a poor understanding of things coming to you. I do the same thing when i talk to people about computers. I assume no understanding untill proven otherwise.

Actually, I understood exactly what you were asking, but you did mention the dual ram thing so I tried to cover everything you mentioned, just in case someone reading this did not see the whole picture. I'm pretty used to people with very broad range of "understanding things" and I just try to cover all the bases that I can.

Originally posted by nerobro

What I was thinking was to take a quickram and quickswitch and tap additional holes on them to attempt to get the ram to move quicker. Could the quickswitch handle it?

As I stated, "Higher flow potential of extra hoses could make a single ram faster if applied properly." What you describe would be one way to get it done and yes, the QuikSwitch could handle it. On the switch, the hoses should be 180* apart to gain the best advantage from that type of setup.

Originally posted by nerobro

Point taken. I've never thought of it that way before. Though my rant was more of a general one. There's a company or two who has tested the equipment but won't show the results.

I guess that it would be very interseting to know just what the motivation is to not "show the results". Care to speculate on that ?

Originally posted by nerobro

I came up saying I loved blazers ;-) Heck I still do.. I just can't shoot a 2 finger trigger blazer, or mag, or hinge cocker for the life of me. Something about swinging 2 finger triggers just doesn't work for me. I didn't even own an electrogun untill after I had embarassed myself trying to shoot that blazer.
At least when I put my finger on just the top spot on the trigger I was able to do it right!

It is still just a matter of what you are used to. Everyone has to get used to new equipment in order to be most effective with it. On the other hand, I can't shoot one very fast (in comparison to some)but my game finger works much better than my test finger does. The minute that I start thinking about the trigger, I'll stumble over the it every time. (Especially a 2-finger or sliding trigger setup):)

[trxtr]

cocker

i believe the very nature of the cocker and all other pneumatically operated sear, hammer type markers prevents them from ever achieving a comparable ROF to the mag. think of the number of horizontally placed "pistons" that must cycle in order for the gun to operate. i count five; trigger (it's reaching, i know) the 4 way, the ram, the sear/hammer assembaly, upper bolt. and all move at a different time and being dependant upon the full completion of the other. thus, inherently putting a cap on it's potential maximum ROF. simpler is better.

thanx
trxtr

[the electrician]

yes it is easier to get an automag to shoot fast...if the trigger wasn't so stiff I could shoot one fast. my friends both use automags that I set-up for them. they both shoot much fster than me. I had to modify mine (ram actuated sear)to make it easier for me to shoot fast. but the potential for high rof is there, right out of the box, with the automag.

but that's not what this is about. this is about pushing the cocker to the limits. one thing the separates the two guns is bolt speed. mags have high bolt speed. less time wasted going back and forth. the opening and closing of the bolt is where the most time is wasted on all guns, cockers especially. since the next ball cannot start falling into the breech until the bolt opens most of the way, and the gun cannot fire again until the bolt is completely closed again, this must be speeded up (without adding alot of bolt force) to gain rof.

I beleive that smaller bore rams are more efficient and more responsive. using QEVs on the ram are an easy way to gain speed without gaining force. I've lightened the cocking mass(pump arm, bolt, back block, and bolt pin) to 2 ounces, which also seems to help the response time

[ES13Raven]

Originally posted by Paladin
No, we haven't yet tried that particular model. The important thing to note here is that such release valves don't really help the ram as much as compensating for limited flow through the vent in the control valve.

Glenn...

I see you are now selling QEVs on your site now.

Have you benn getting good results with them?

[Duganator]

After months and months of calculations and testing according to my calculations the answer is app. 60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. 1

[Paladin]

Originally posted by the electrician


I beleive that smaller bore rams are more efficient and more responsive. using QEVs on the ram are an easy way to gain speed without gaining force. I've lightened the cocking mass(pump arm, bolt, back block, and bolt pin) to 2 ounces, which also seems to help the response time

I believe the smaller bore rams (like the ANS 1/4" bore unit) when compared to the typical 3/8" or 10mm bore rams are not really more "efficient" and you would be hard pressed to measure any difference in response time. However the smaller bore requires higher pressures that will get through the smallest air passage in the line quicker and fill the volume of the cylinder a bit faster. This in consideration of all else on the gun being the same and the force needed to cock the gun remaining constant.
Since the smaller bore provides slightly less than half the surface area at the plunger face for the air to push on, it then requires a bit more than twice the operating pressure to do the same job. It's all a matter of generating energy and there are other drawbacks to using higher pressures in the pneumation system. Mainly, everything just has to work harder so it will die quicker. i.e. Typical 4-way valves remain much smoother and will suffer far less 0ring problems at lower pressures.