Wicked Air Sportz: Turbo Rev

**manike** · 08-23-2002, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
this whole process will not work _at all_.

You said it

manike

WickedAirSportz · 08-23-2002, 12:57 PM

I guess one thing you would have to explain away is this fact:

You "comment out" the subroutine call for the logic in question, and the feed rate drops. How could this be if it didn't work?

**Butterfingers** · 08-23-2002, 01:02 PM

Gee WAS we still come to the bottom line don't we?

Instead of just speculating, why dont you just prove your claims and shut us all up.

**mykroft** · 08-23-2002, 01:05 PM

WAS: Put an X-Board rev beside a 1st gen rev, empty, and turn the thing on, watch the X-Board spin faster. It's visible to the naked eye.

**manike** · 08-23-2002, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
I guess one thing you would have to explain away is this fact:

You "comment out" the subroutine call for the logic in question, and the feed rate drops. How could this be if it didn't work?

Is that your only proof that your hypothesis is correct?

Geeze, how the heck did you graduate with all of those degrees?

Varying the paddle rotation to the rate of drop of the paddles is an excellent way to stir the pot the best way possible and agititate to get a good stream of balls falling into the loader aperture. I have respect for that part of your code, and thoroughly understand how it can help keep the tube as full as possible and make as reliable an agitating system as it can. But that's not what you claimed. You claimed it allowed feed rates over what an agitating system can, that's what I am calling. Your hypothesis on how it can achieve higher feed rates is what I am calling.

I hypothesise that by losing that logic, and I'm guessing just rotating the paddle constantly, you may not have the ideal rotation rate and thus it won't stir the pot efficiently, or worse it will rotate too fast and bounce balls around in a popcorn effect. I've seen both happen. By varying the rate you are more likely to pass through the rotation rate which is ideal and thus help to feed better than a constant rate at the wrong value.

manike

WickedAirSportz · 08-23-2002, 01:15 PM

I hypothesise that by losing that logic, and I'm guessing just rotating the paddle constantly, you may not have the ideal rotation rate and thus it won't stir the pot efficiently, or worse it will rotate too fast and bounce balls around in a popcorn effect. I've seen both happen. By varying the rate you are more likely to pass through the rotation rate which is ideal and thus help to feed better than a constant rate at the wrong value.

Nice try. When the logic can not determine the optimal pulsation rate necessary for syncronization, the routine simply falls back to varying the motor speed to provide the best feeding. This happens in a drop test.

You think it is physically impossible to syncronize the feeding to the outlet drop frequency. I disagree. You believe that you can not determine within a certain degree of accuracy of where the paddle blades are located. I disagree. In fact, I can tell you how many blades the paddle has by the outlet drop frequency vs motor speed! This is how I know this works!

**314159** · 08-23-2002, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by manike
I have respect for that part of your code....

we haven't seen any of the code yet, ¬_¬

**manike** · 08-23-2002, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Nice try. When the logic can not determine the optimal pulsation rate necessary for syncronization, the routine simply falls back to varying the motor speed to provide the best feeding. This happens in a drop test.

This was in responce to your saying when you remove that part of the logic, my mistake, I thought you meant removed the logic that varies the rotational speed.

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
You think it is physically impossible to syncronize the feeding to the outlet drop frequency. I disagree. You believe that you can not determine within a certain degree of accuracy of where the paddle blades are located. I disagree. In fact, I can tell you how many blades the paddle has by the outlet drop frequency vs motor speed! This is how I know this works!

Well you have seen my evidence and theories and proof... where is yours? is your only proof the fact that you disagree?

*la la la I'm sticking my fingers in my ears and not listening to you because I am right la la la*

Sound familiar? Time to grow up, and back up what you say with evidence or shut up as someone who doesn't have a leg to stand on.

manike

**manike** · 08-23-2002, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by 314159
we haven't seen any of the code yet, ¬_¬

are you implying that maybe it doesn't even do that?

It's the principle of doing it and the idea that I agree with.

manike

WickedAirSportz · 08-23-2002, 01:24 PM

You claimed it allowed feed rates over what an agitating system can, that's what I am calling. Your hypothesis on how it can achieve higher feed rates is what I am calling.

Ok, let's start there. Do you believe it is possible to strike the stack of balls (or balls surrounding the stack where kinetic energy can be applied) to accelerate the bottom most ball under ANY circumstance? Don't you think this happens on occassion anyways?

**manike** · 08-23-2002, 01:30 PM

WAS, I suggest you actually read my posts and what I said, you will find I answered this already. I'm not sure if I can even be bothered to humour you with replying now.

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz
Do you believe it is possible to strike the stack of balls (or balls surrounding the stack where kinetic energy can be applied) to accelerate the bottom most ball under ANY circumstance? Don't you think this happens on occassion anyways?

It is possible for it to happen occasionally and accidentally, but it's a rare and lucky occurrence. You talk about a consistent 16bps which means it has to happen every single ball.

As I stated it's very unlikely, due to gaps in the stack and due to the lucky timing and small windows of opportunity that are available.

Where is the video? or proof? or evidence?

A little less conversation a little more action please

manike

**314159** · 08-23-2002, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by manike
It is possible for it to happen occasionally and accidentally, but it's a rare and lucky occurrence. You talk about a consistent 16bps which means it has to happen every single ball.

Wicked Air Sportz introduces an upgraded circuit board for your Brass Eagle/Viewloader Revolution! This amazing board kicks your Revvy into high gear, allowing consistant feeding of up to 16 balls per second!

TurboRev with WAS modified Vortex Impeller
Overall Average Feed Rate: 13.407 bps

bolth taken from the same page at http://www.wickedairsportz.com/products/turborev.htm

i think that the 16 bps constant* might mean, 16bps at sea level, average tempature and humidity, maby slightly pressurised hopper

......

i do expect marketers to be unethical.... that is why you never trust them

WickedAirSportz · 08-23-2002, 03:23 PM

Overall Average Feed Rate: 13.407 bps

Drop tests can not accerate the balls, as there is no way to build a pattern. Kind of like not having a muffler on an engine (back pressure) reduces your low end torque.

**cledford** · 08-23-2002, 03:37 PM

Is that why drag pipes are only about 12 inches long?

**314159** · 08-23-2002, 03:49 PM

"Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic" Clark

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo" Asimov

**Timmee** · 08-23-2002, 03:57 PM

A good point that was brought up by someone wiser than me was how does the eye detect the direction of ball travel? Since there is only 1 eye, the only thing it should be able to sense is if there's a ball blocking the sensor.

A question I had was how does your system compensate for blowback? Wouldn't blowback reduce or negate any performance increase that your system claims to have (in regards to smacking the balls into the breech)?

**ShooterJM** · 08-23-2002, 04:12 PM

On a side note, I have a few suggestions.

1) Maybe move this to Technical Roundtable when the forum is ready?

2) Mods watch this carefully so it doesn't just turn into a flame fest. I know people are frustrated, but hey, in the end we all love the same sport and want what's best for it right?

Now I'd also like to point out that this is the sappiest message ever posted by yours truly. Sounds like a "Can't we all just get along" snivel, but you know what I'm trying to say.

WickedAirSportz · 08-23-2002, 04:15 PM

A question I had was how does your system compensate for blowback? Wouldn't blowback reduce or negate any performance increase that your system claims to have (in regards to smacking the balls into the breech)?

Yep, it certainly does. If your gun has so much blow back that it moves the entire stack, you should probably consider venting the feed tube.

**Timmee** · 08-23-2002, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz

Yep, it certainly does. If your gun has so much blow back that it moves the entire stack, you should probably consider venting the feed tube.

On my Minimag, there would be a large stack of balls to keep that from happening, but what about on a vertical feed marker? My Rainmaker and Autococker can only have about 2 balls in the stack before the hopper's eye.

**SlartyBartFast** · 08-23-2002, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by WickedAirSportz

Drop tests can not accerate the balls, as there is no way to build a pattern. Kind of like not having a muffler on an engine (back pressure) reduces your low end torque.

LOL!!

I was going to stay away from this thread and just amuse myself reading the *ABSOLUTE* lack of any relevant information, evidence, or other proof and the conniptions AO members are all putting themselves into arguing with a brick wall. But that statement has got to be laughed at.

It's true that the lack of a tail pipe will affect the performance of an engine, but to use that as the excuse/analogy for a hopper emptying is rediculous.

The loss of power in an engine due to either too little back pressure has far more to do with how the engine is breathing than anything else. Essentially, high flow exhausts are counterproductive unless the engine is also modified on the intake side or the intake to exhaust balance had some room to tweek.

WAS, stick to electronic if you really are a genius in that field

and stay out of automotive analogies. If you lost a little of the arrogance and tried to actually give any real information, the people on this board would become your supporters and admirers.

Manike, Shartly, and all the other valiant AO members tilting windmills:

GIVE UP!

This guy is just never going to get it. While he was once only a social outcast/recluse genius with an arrogance problem, he's now successfully grafted those fine social skills onto the heart and soul of an unrepentant snake oil marketer.

He'll never provide proof and I think that anybody with even a quarter brain has reached the point where they know he never will (or can't

).

Why doesn't somebody put this pathetic squabbling to rest and just put the hopper on WARPIGs hopper test setup and be done with this once and for all?

**SlartyBartFast** · 08-23-2002, 04:44 PM

ROTFL!

I just realised the irony of my SIG in this thread.

"My claims are definitive. Reality IS inaccurate.
WAS"

**Cristobal** · 08-23-2002, 04:53 PM

Someone around here has to have a turbo/revy and a marker than can do 16bps. Put the hopper on there, turn your ACE off and take a video of what happens. Or better yet, keep the ACE on and then we can look a the sound waveform to see if the marker ever has to wait for a ball. I know WAS has the equipment to do this...

**314159** · 08-23-2002, 05:37 PM

load sm5 has one, and he has a sfl emag. i wonder if we could draw him into this?

here is a link of his gun and turborev

https://www.automags.org/forums/showt...threadid=47668

**Koosh** · 08-23-2002, 07:08 PM

guys, I have a movie of my Race-Cocker doing 13 bps with no eye and a turborevvy....

It chops!

but my batteries were getting weak, so I don't know if this would count...

**Restola** · 08-23-2002, 08:36 PM

Anyone else notice WAS will answer the random and ignorant posts from the average joe, but has avoided manike on all but 3 posts?

I'm sure WAS will respond to THIS post as another excuse to avoid manike's well worded questions...

**mikebridge** · 08-24-2002, 01:53 AM

you don't need no stinking muffler on there to have backpressure and torque. thats why they invented turbos. turn about 33% of that wasted heat coming out of your cylinders into power. boost == torque, torque == fun!
and i'm not EVEN gonna get started on the can/cannot of the 'AI' in the WAS revy chip.

**hitech** · 08-26-2002, 11:47 AM

I like tilting at windmills.

Besides, many more people are reading this than those of us who have replied. I'll bet there are a few who have formed opinions because of this thread. That makes all this worth while.

**314159** · 08-26-2002, 11:59 AM

an idea to test if the paddles push the paint down.

-take a paper clip
-straighten it out
-go down 1 inch, bend 90 degrees
-curve the 1 inch portion so it matches the curve of the revy
-attach with a rubber band as high on the feed tube of the revvy will allow
-throw a second ruber band on slightly below the 1st
-cut the paperclip so it extends about 1/4 in below the feed tube
-with loader off, and containing paint, bend the bottom of the paper clip so it just barely holds the paint, and just enough to stop the next ball up if the bottom ball is quickly removed to simulate firing

-take a ball, tape a piece of string on it or something so you can yank it from the turborev quickly to simulate firing.
-load this ball in first to the turborev with string hanging out
-dump some paint in the turborev
-turn it on, and yank out the ball with the string on it.
-see if the ball above it is forced out by the paddles accelerating the paintballs.

**kevdupuis** · 08-27-2002, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by hitech
I like tilting at windmills. Besides, many more people are reading this than those of use who have replied. I'll bet there are a few who have formed opinions because of this thread. That makes all this worth while.

Amen brother,

**Pain4u** · 09-02-2002, 05:39 PM

I have a turborev , pre-brass , reg.12v rev
Im shooting a F5 , Race , 2K Angel tried all the revs with each gun.
Actually its my team mates son that is shooting them he shoots a-hell-of-alot faster than us. The ROF on the Angel is the only thing we can go by to see how fast he shoots (15bps)
Filled the all hoppers
The turborev , pre-brass were about the same on the 3 guns and keep up fine.
The big differance in the 2 were the turborev eat batteries.
The pre brass works great with black shells, if you had the colored shells you have to paint the bottom black so the light wouldnt get in to spin the paddles.
The reg. 12v rev was either chopping paint or just shooting blanks. It couldnt keep up at all big differance from the other 2 revs.
Conclusion:
I prefer pre-brass rev because I dont have to buy batteries every other day.

Hope this help you out on the working part. I dont know the adj/speeds of the motor part or about the board.

Thread: Wicked Air Sportz: Turbo Rev

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions