Printable View
I'd like to dig into the specific dynamics of this topic, if you guys will entertain it.
Viking, G6R, Insight/Onslaught, Clone 5, VIS, Cyborg. Stuff like that.
Efficient flow paths?
Valve designs that flow a lot of air very quickly?
Valves that snap shut very quickly?
Mainly it's poppet valves that do all of those things listed. A poppet by design will open and close quickly.
Spoil valves have been able to catch up in efficiency by having really low operating pressure so it's literally using less air.
Pressure and volume are inversely related, FYI. Spool valves have not been able to catch up because of operating pressure. They've been able to catch up due to designs that prevent the shot chamber from dumping air to atmosphere and improving flow paths.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRealKaz
Vanquishes and Luxes operate at relatively high pressures (160-200 psi) and are not efficient because of their valve designs. Clones, Primes, IV Core Geos, etc operate at much lower pressures and still use less air due to smart valve designs and efficient flow paths.
It sounds like you already know why. When you combine low operating pressure AND low volume with optimized flow paths you're gonna get an efficient design. A Prime and a Nova 700 may both run on 100ish psi, but the Nova requires more of that air at the same pressure to do the same job. Lobe my Prime, is it the most efficient thin out there? No, but it is simple, reliable & more efficient than any Mag I've ever owned...
In my defense I am drinking and "lobe" and "thin" are words...Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDRetro
#weeditnothing
To be fair, I'm fairly educated on this topic. I was just hoping to raise that bar from input from those more educated on it than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDRetro
The Prime is a great example, and one I'd like to discuss, as I own one as well. It's a very simple dwell-insensitive high volume dump chamber, similar to pre-IV Geos and the Regency Crome (but with a supply shutoff). But, it manages to be quite efficient, even with its 100 psi operating pressure and with no reactive valve to shut off the chamber. If you look at it, the bolt handles the "shutoff" duties with its grooves. I'd be curious to see its efficiency ceiling with a minimized dwell, as I've never tested it with mine. They are lovely markers, though....highly underrated, ergonomically awesome, and stupid simple.
Guns with lower operating pressures can shoot lower into the airtanks...The weight of the components makes a difference too. Lighter bolts, rams pistons, etc...less energy to move. It's not just about airflow.
I'm looking at this from more from a "volume per shot" perspective. Yes, a marker that operates at 100 psi can shoot a little deeper into a tank than one that operates at 200 psi, but it doesn't matter much if the 200 psi marker uses less volume per shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman
I'm with you on the "lighter components" point. A lighter ram, for example, takes less energy to accelerate, which also allows the valve to close faster. I run my LV1.5 with the light ram for that reason.
Higher pressure as a rule would wind up being more efficient, since the minor losses due to flow path would be even more minor comparatively. But then you have the issue of not being able to shoot as low in the tank.
The most efficient design would be a short burst of air that is the exact amount you need to get the ball up to speed with optimized flow paths and as few reductions as possible since that is your biggest flow loss.
Also, inner sides of "bends" are more critical to be smooth than the outer side due to the formation of a vena contracta, which essentially reduces the effective flow area due to separation.
So the most efficient marker is a poppet valve that operates at a high enough pressure to have the minor losses be as minor as possible while still being able to shoot low in the tank, and has transitions with smooth inner edges so the flow separates from the inner wall as little as possible.
Excellent post, snoopay.
I fully agree with your evaluation of the most efficient marker. What about these very efficient, very low pressure dump valve spools such as the Clone 5, Prime (C5 without shifting valve), CS1? It's pretty astounding that a marker that operates at 100 psi, like the MacDevs, can be so efficient. Low pressure and short valve duration (low volume) is an impressive combination, so does that indicate well designed flow paths to reduce energy loss? Or is there something else going on that I'm missing?
I would assume better flow paths along with proper dwell times. I am not extremely familiar with spool valve markers released in recent years, but I know the original Ion had the dwell set such that it would use the same amount of air dry firing or shooting a ball, implying that it was using all of the air whether it needed to or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by imped4now
You also have to keep in mind that even 100 psi is pretty high compared to the minor losses you'll see due to flow paths. Even a hole in an infinite wall constriction is on the order of a few psi maximum (if memory serves, been a while since I've dealt with fluids, it might be even lower).
The thing that drove this point home for me was when I asked my professor why you saw smooth transitions on the intakes of cars but exhaust was always the worst possible loss into the atmosphere, and he told me to calculate it by hand. It was so small comparatively that it wasn't even worth worrying about.
That's kind of the same thing with the markers that operate at 100 psi. They should be able to still reach a pretty good efficiency. You would only net about a 1% increase or so (guesstimate) by increasing the pressure significantly.
Good info.
The Ion is a bit different, as the bolt acts as the "valve" and the system is dwell-sensitive.
If you take a look at the PE IV Core and MD Clone 5 bolt systems, the bolt and valve actions are decoupled, allowing for higher dwell times without a change in air usage thanks to the breech-sensing valves.
That's true, but you could probably turn the dwell down on an Ion and it would still operate fine and be more efficient; I haven't tried this to confirm, but it would make sense to me from the results of Gordon's dry firing test.Quote:
Originally Posted by imped4now
The downside of having a decoupled valve is that you have a more tortuous path for the air, which can have a negative impact on efficiency.
I think blow poppet valve could allow for a better flow path, and may possibly yield slightly better efficiency. I've not done the calculations personally, and there could be another design consideration I'm overlooking that would make it more of a detriment.
That may be, but two of the most efficient spools out there are the Clone 5 and CSR, both of which have valves that are decoupled from the bolts. I'm also failing to see how the flow paths on those two are more tortuous than on something like an Ion or Quest. Can you point out the specifics of what exactly you're looking at there?
And what do you mean by a blow poppet?
These are the ones I was looking at when I said that. It's not drastically more tortuous in the clone, but it is slightly. This may also be an old design.Quote:
Originally Posted by imped4now
A blow forward poppet, I'm thinking something like the Mini I guess, where it's a poppet valve that opens to push a bolt forward. Not the mini design exactly, but that sort of design seems like it would allow for the most freedom in ensuring you have smooth flow to me. That's just speculation though.
That's the older balanced Clone bolt system. The Clone 5 operates in an unbalanced fashion, similar to the PE IV Core. Check that out if you're unfamiliar.
I really like the pressure controlled poppet system that the Mini and Axe employ. From those not in the know, it's vastly underrated. One of my favorite systems ever.
Snoopay700 explained it quite well.
Ideally, you want to open the valve and have all the available measured volume of air hit the projectile without having to flow through any restriction. It would then come down to a decreasing volume of air providing a decreasing force as the volume behind the ball increases. As the volume increases, when the force due to air pressure equals the force of friction, then you have reached your proper length of barrel for max efficiency because no further acceleration will take place. Allowing for friction of the barrel also means that higher pressures will deliver the best overall efficiencies due to the smaller starting volume not allowing the overall volume behind the ball to decrease as quickly. Once the volume increases such that the pressure and resulting force is equal to the friction, then all air in that volume no longer produces acceleration. The smaller the percentage of volume used to store the energy means that volume won't be used to store energy that can't be used to provide acceleration and more is actually applied to the ball to provide acceleration.
What does this mean for most paintball markers? It means you need a large unobstructed opening between the chamber and ball, and it needs to be able to open quickly. This is part of the reason mags aren't as efficient as some other markers. The valve opens and closes too slow. We compensate by using a higher pressure to allow a "pop" of air which is less affected by the flow restrictions of the slow reacting bolt/valve. If all paintball guns used
higher pressure chambers, they could achieve even more efficiency, but I'm not sure it would be worth the cost of the parts required to harness the higher pressure. But the guns would be even smaller than they are now.
No. Guns are more efficient because they have newer and better magic gnomes and unionized the gremlins. Older guns have older gnomes that aren't as good anymore. Simple as that.
This is the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody
/thread
Whoa, biased against cockers much? You didn't mention elves...
That's because Automags are magically delicious.Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopay700
;)
From what I've observed (specifically, my own testing + some data mining), a spool will do about 0.25g of air per shot, and a poppet will do about 0.20g of air per shot. It was kind of weirdly consistent.
Within the same valve types, the observable difference was the operating pressure and how deep guns could shoot into the tank.
The problem is test design and execution.
Welcome back goat.
Been a while.
;)
I've heard that high tide helps get more shots. Solar flares are known to improve shot counts too.
But probably the best way to get more shots is to test while using mind altering drugs. Because when counting you skip numbers that you don't need.
Therefore, obviously you get more shots.
There ya go!