spring

**hitech** · 08-13-2003, 01:36 PM

Tom said it turns the on/off valve into a reg. and screws up the way it works. Apparently he has tried it (preloading the sear).

**QUINCYMASSGUY** · 08-13-2003, 03:15 PM

spring

With the spring being direct pressure against a classic valve's on/off assembly and being used in a non-Lvl 10 setup (which has the bolt providing more force on the sear I could see that being a reg in a way. If he said that before the X-valve I am sure that is true. With the push of the xvalve though I'm wondering if that extra-strong push of air could overcome the spring resistance so it does not have reg-like properties. Actually shooting is the part that would be great, it's finding out if the pressure rushing against the on/off is enough to overcome the extra resistance. If what Tom did was include the spring in the on/off itself I could definitely see the issue as it would bounce back due to the spring being compressed against the back end of the sear so it would recoil the minute less pressure was applied. With the spring down just pushing on the trigger/sear fulcrum instead of the on/off could have a different result.

Just putting more detail into exactly what I was thinking hitech, I definitely think you made a good point. I'm only wondering if Tom was thinking a spring in a different location than I was and also that he hadn't taken retro valves into consideration, and maybe he was referring to the spring pushing in the on/off fully before the trigger is pulled, this idea relies on the point that the sear won't move so the on/off can't seal without some help from the trigger pull and that the extra spring pressure would be less than the extra pressure an XValve applies to the on/off pin, meaning the reset push would still be greater than that found in a classic valve and therefore should still allow full reset and shooting, no reg effect.

**athomas** · 08-14-2003, 08:51 AM

I remember the discussion we were having when Tom mentioned the spring causing the on/off pin to act like a regulator. It makes sense. However, after many months of thinking about it, I also have drawn a similar conclusion to that of QUINCYMASSGUY. The retro force is considerable when compared to the pull force. Since its the resultant force (force pushing on the top of the pin minus the spring force pushing on the bottom of the pin) that determines the action of the pin, why wouldn't it work. Right now we have atmospheric pressure pushing against the pin. Lets add some pressure using a spring. Its the pressure differential that counts. If the end result is 15oz, then its the same force as the new ULT. Just make sure you don't put a spring or magnet in that totally overpowers the trigger pull.

The position of the spring or magnet doesn't really come into play if the end result is the same force vs the same distance.

**QUINCYMASSGUY** · 08-14-2003, 11:48 AM

The Upcoming Dark Ages (edited to trim it down a bit)

AThomas, thank you for responding. This whole idea relies on a couple things, two which wouldn't have applied before the RT/X Valves and the ULT:

1.) The spring CAN NOT exceed the weight of the pull or match the weight of the pull (15oz) since the return force of the trigger would be enough of a pull weight that it won't bounce or go into runaway. Tapping a 1oz trigger set up like this could result in the momentum of the reset adding 2oz of force at the moment of firing and fire another when the spring pushes back after being compressed. 7oz was my estimate, but that's not ruling out the possibility of it getting closer to 4 or 5oz or even 2oz. and still being safe. Great tuning opportunities w/ different springs.

2.) There is no chance this would work with any other valve besides an RT or X. It relies on the retro effect. This is why I think the idea could work now, regardless of Tom's prior statement, because at the time of the statement he was totally correct based on the Mag as it was then. We all know the Mag kicks, um, tush right now and I'm proud to show it off because it truly is underrated and improved alot. AGDs idea has been to get classics out of the market and replace them with X's, and this is an incentive to do that.

Some added points I wanted to enter:

3.) This idea would technically work without the ULE on/off. It could take the 3lb pull down to the same amount as the retro effect is proportionately greater. 3lb pull-41oz spring= 7oz pull, 9lb retro-41oz resistance=100oz return. It would require a way heavier spring though which could be problematic fitting it.

4.) And to pitch a prior idea, a sloped sear which I'm sure most of you saw me previously post about (still in the Workshop if interested) would be VERY beneficial as it would shorten the pull by about 20-25% and although it would add 3.75 oz to the pull, it also adds 11.25oz to the return. You could put a spring in with 3.75 oz more and the pull would be the same as a normal sear would have with this idea and also add 8 oz to the return.

Normal ULE: 15oz pull, 45oz return force, .1in pull
Spring ULE: 7oz pull, 38oz return force, .1in pull.
Sl+Spr ULE: 7oz pull, 44.5oz return, .075 inch pull.
And if a 50% slope design can be done w/ even more spring (and yes I have a great idea for how this could happen):
4oz pull, 64oz return, .05inch pull.

This would truly be the first mechanical paintball gun to shoot like an electric.

NOTE: I am hereby openly declaring that I acknowledge these are advancements on his product and affect parts that Tom Kaye and AGD has patents on, so therefore they have every right to improve on them including this thread and produce them without my agreement, acknowledgement, or legal right to request compensation. I of course retain the right to produce them myself if I desire to, but give full authority to AGD to do the same, if that's what I need to do to let these ideas become a reality. I would of course appreciate one or two complementary end units when it comes out, but he has every right to deny me that as no compensation for sharing this idea with him is expected or required.

**QUINCYMASSGUY** · 08-16-2003, 03:07 PM

anyone

Anyone else have any input towards this or, for those who have posted so far, any additional thoughts? On paper, it really looks like it could allow for sick rates of fire from a mechanical marker. But additional comments/input would help finetune it and make sure the changes interact properly with the Mag's current functionality. The current key questions are:

1.) Would the spring cause the on/off to act like a regulator or, because of the reactive effect found in RT and X Valves, would this no longer be an issue as enough force would be pushing through the on/off assembly to override the spring (reg effect) and properly recharge the marker? If it's 8oz additional resistance but 45oz original resistance in the retro, I believe it would be fine and still be around 37oz. What do all of you think?

2.) Would having the spring set to apply, for example, 10oz of push to a trigger with a 15oz pull originally not allow the sear to properly reset? This tails into a previous conversation about how keeping steady pressure on the trigger all the way through the return would affect the sear and if it allows it to reset properly. The result of that was yes, it was fine, so wouldn't it be fine here too?

Please provide some technical input, these are logical, thought out ideas I have put significant time into for the improvement of the Mag and the whole reason I am posting here is to make sure they remain true and beneficial to the Mag functionality.

**QUINCYMASSGUY** · 08-21-2003, 11:10 AM

up

Up, the whole point of this is to discuss functionality of the blowforward Mag and identify components of its design that could be modified to improve on it in giant strides. If I had the resources to go through with this I would have already done a "beta test" as it seems a sound idea, but I don't and the absolute lack of interest in this topic is disturbing. Hitech and athomas both made good points, but I have yet to hear from AGD or anyone else. I'm not asking for praise, I couldn't give a damn about that, and I am fine if the response is that it couldn't work and logical rationale is given, but absolute silence, especially considering the time I have sacrificed towards this and the fact it is aimed to benefit the company, is truly insulting. Help me out guys, if you're not taking this seriously at least explain why. Thank you.

**hitech** · 08-25-2003, 11:36 AM

I believe you can put in a "pretension" spring without turning the on/off valve into a regulator. You have to make sure that the pretension of the spring is less than pressure the on/off is exerting on the sear. The closer you get to the pressure of the on/off the slower it will return after firing. You want to make sure you are well under the on/off pressure as it is not always exactly the same. On a ReTro Valve you need to be under the "resting" pressure, not the "reactive" pressure. Otherwise the marker would "sweetspot" on it's own and fire fullauto.

Want to try it easily and cheaply? Take a classic carbon fiber frame and cut a slot (for a spring) behind and perpendicular to the sear leg when then sear is in the back (fired) position. Behind the slot drill a small hole for the spring hook. Put the hook from the other side of the spring on the sear leg. The biggest problem will be measuring the pressure the on/off is applying to the sear. You need to measure it at the sear leg, where the spring will be pulling from. That's it and you have a preloaded sear grip.

If you try it, let us know how it works.

**drx975** · 08-25-2003, 08:52 PM

Ok, I think you have a really good idea and obviously you have put a good deal of time into it. Dont be insulted though--not many people view this area of the forum..in fact right now I am the only one in this forum.

But anyway back to the idea and the point--the only thing I can see problamatic here myself is shootdown. Isn't the reason the ReTro and X-valves have zero shootdown (up to 26 bps) due to the fact that they have such a fast recharge rate? My point is simply that by using this spring, and reducing the return force, are we also slowing down the recharge rate of the valve (thus inhibiting top ROF possible without shootdown)?

If that is true, this could cancel out the idea of reaching higher rates of fire. Sure you could shoot over 20 bps, but would you want to shoot that fast without shootdown? Most likely not. And yes I know we dont have loaders that feed 20+ bps now, but we will eventually. It could be however, that the springs effect on the recharge rate is so minimal that no noticeable amount of shootdown occurs. We wont know until we try, or unless there is someone out there who could do the math.

If Im right on slowing down the recharge rate (Im probably wrong because I am not too familiar with the workings of a ReTro Valve) then this idea could be used to further reduce the pull of the trigger, which is still very important.

Anyway really good idea, if possible try making this device yourself. If thats not possible, find a way to talk to AGD/ Tom Kaye because out of all the ideas Ive read here, this one shows promise.

**QUINCYMASSGUY** · 08-25-2003, 10:36 PM

hitech and drx975, thank you for the added input. I have a little update and some responses to your remarks:

I tried something to see if this could work. I wrapped a rubber band around the trigger, through the little gap in the intelliframe right behind the trigger. I made the tension enough so that I could tap the trigger and it would go off. One catch: it would partially reset but not enough so the sear fully latches and recharge doesn't happen. I think one of my original inquiries was legit in that the retro effect at the start of return is 45oz, however closer to the end of the reset (before the trigger is fully forward) it is less than 15oz and so my rubber banded trigger, which was providing about 12oz. pressure, wasn't able to reset. So the retro effect does not go all the way to the point of full reset. The question now is... how light can it get while still always resetting or cutting into ROF and also is there a way around this to keep it that light and allow reset?

Hitech, the resting pressure is 15oz, which is why 10oz spring pressure could work. The 45 oz resets it, the 10oz is less than the resting pressure, so it will not fire again. But good point. I am going to hold off on modifying frames and such as I don't want to waste money until I further evaluate this idea, but you have a really good idea in using a cheap carbon frame.

drx975, I think shootdown is something to keep in mind. But keep this in mind too, the valve itself can recharge and shoot almost 30cps (jack and coke tested this) however it has been noted that the intelliframe limits the user to shooting maybe 12-15bps. If an idea like this could allow users to shoot up to 20bps and reduces the maximum cps without shootdown to 22, then that's fine. They would never get shootdown because they don't hit 22. If AGD wants to get into a juvenile "junk" measuring contest with WDP about whose marker could technically cycle more times even though WDP would have mad shootdown doing that and with it's nonelectronic, longer and still not superlight pull the Mag wouldn't break 15bps, then fine. It's the business principle of the bottleneck. It's the narrowest point in the production that determines the end product. 22 of part A, 20 of part B, and 15 of part C, if a product is made from one of each, then 15 is the max that can be produced. If a marker's airsystem can supply for 25cps, the gun cycles at 25bps the gun recharges fully for 22bps, but the trigger is only humanely possible (reliably) for 12bps, the gun is wasting it's potential. But 25 for the air supply, 22 for the cycle, 22 for the recharge, and a trigger allowing 18-20bps, the gun is close to its potential with a little room for comfort and shooting more than the first one.

OK, there's my 2 bucks (definitely more than 2 cents). The other thought I had along this was if the tip of the sear can be redesigned to allow less movement between secure (and non bolt chipping) position and the fire point, the pull would be shorter. If the lvl10 allows less pressure against the sear, how does having just the tip of the sear holding the bolt still cause chipping? What if the sear front was thicker, distributing the pressure on the bolt to a larger area horizontally and not having such a sharp edge so it doesnt chip it?

**drx975** · 08-26-2003, 11:26 AM

The other thought I had along this was if the tip of the sear can be redesigned to allow less movement between secure (and non bolt chipping) position and the fire point, the pull would be shorter. If the lvl10 allows less pressure against the sear, how does having just the tip of the sear holding the bolt still cause chipping? What if the sear front was thicker, distributing the pressure on the bolt to a larger area horizontally and not having such a sharp edge so it doesnt chip it?

This is another good idea, but I dont think this one will work. Awhile ago when I still had a stock frame I was reading up on z-valves and those things, to reduce my pull to a lighter pull. I also read something on shortening the trigger pull by using the safety as a trigger stop. At first I couldn't believe there was enough movement in the trigger with the safety on, but I had to try it. So I moved the trigger rod out a good amount (also I had to put the valve onto the body with the bolt on, to measure correctly...we're talking 1 mm here, and I measured that too) so that the sear was just barely resting on the bolt, and went outside to try it. I got about 5 VERY quick shots out, but the gun stopped firing after that. I figured an empty CO2 tank, and went back here to tell people what I did and if it was a bad idea or not.

Turns out it wasnt a good idea and here's why: If you adjust where the sear lies on the bolt (by pulling the trigger rod out) not only are you going to run into a chipped bolt, but you are restricting the flow of air into the powertube because the on/off pin is now shoved way up into the on/off valve.

Your probably thinking of making a new sear though, and lets just say for a minute that you were. In this case, the on/off pin placement with the trigger at rest would be fine (because you would make the sear so it fit this way, while resting only on the edge of the bolt). Then, as you said, wed only have to worry about chipping the bolt. This is where you need to talk to someone who knows something about the hardness of the lvl10 bolt...the harder the material, the easier it is to chip. You also cant have a thicker sear, and thats because the bolt is round, or a circle. The part of the sear that catches the bolt is straight, and therefore if you were to make it thicker/wider, it would be too wide to rest on the bolt. Ill attach a picture of what I mean.

It's not drawn to scale obviously, but you get the idea--the thicker sear will not be able to comepletely rest/catch the bolt, which would clearly cause a lot of problems.

**QUINCYMASSGUY** · 08-26-2003, 09:46 PM

idea

Yeah, the trigger rod idea and the safety idea are definitely bad moves, what I was thinking more was a concave sear front, curved to match the shape of the bolt. Rounded corners would be important so the corners don't catch and chip. Doubling the amount of surface area touching the sear horizontally would let the amount touching the sear vertically be able to be reduced without so much pressure being placed on one section of the bolt.

Just my ideas, wondering if it has been thought of before or at least since the Lvl10 and what technical aspects of the Mag's construction and function would support this or negate it. It would require a new sear with the other side being reshaped to counter the new starting point of the sear front.

So has this been evaluated before and what was the verdict?

**QUINCYMASSGUY** · 08-26-2003, 09:53 PM

image

A redesign of your image to show the concave shape.

**drx975** · 08-28-2003, 10:05 AM

I see how your new design works..

There is one more problem which JUST came to mind. Take your mag apart, and check out the sear. Come on, do it, its 1:15 in the morning here and Im doing it, hahaha.. (well it was 1:15 then, only im posting now becuase I have gotton the chance to actually finish my post)

Anyway what you want to look at is the part of the sear that catches the bolt, and then look at the body rail. Noticing a problem with a wider sear? Its not going to be able to pass through the provided opening in the body rail if its too big. Im thinking that a 2/3 increase in width is all we can manage to squeak out of this idea. An idea to counter this problem could be to just widen the sear at the very top or the lip (the part that wont pass through the body rail). Its tough to picture, but I think its possible.

Ok now another problem came to mind (its late, the thought process is slower). This is going to be hard to explain so ill add another picture in. Ok, now we have a wider sear, forget the body rail for a minute, and lets say we fire the gun. In a normal mag, the sear goes straight down, releasing the bolt without a problem. But if we have a wider sear, that is catching (for example) the 8 and 4 oclock positions on the bolt if it were facing you, were going to run into problems with releasing the bolt--the part of the sear that is at the 8 and 4 oclock positions on the bolt will release not only later, but possibly not at all. This is of course considering an extremely short pull, under .1inches. Refer to the picture now to see what im saying.

Basically we would have to increase the pull length to compensate for this problem. Isn't that the exact opposite idea of this sear?

And by the way, I know the picture isn't showing exactly how the sear moves, but its the position before pulling the trigger, and after pulling the trigger, which are important to note.

Let me know what you think now.

**QUINCYMASSGUY** · 08-28-2003, 11:46 AM

CONCAVE

In the case of the more pull distance due to the concave shape, you might have a point, but by pointing less of an arc in the concavity of the new sear tip it will still get twice as much surface area on the bolt as the stock sear and not require a longer pull. It should be concave enough so the right and left edges of the bolt are released at the same time as the center edge of the bolt. That would at least allow it to still be way less than the previous sear.

Sure, it would be wider. The space in the rail for the front of the sear would have to be widened. Or, have the top wide and it taper down near the bottom. I think a larger rail space is the better move. AGD is redesigning the rail, that would be the optimal time to do it, but many other people produce rails as well. They can always modify it.

spring

spring

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment