mcarterbrown.com  

CCI Home of the Phantom Pump Gun

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-04-2013, 11:50 AM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Czech Republic (middle Europe)

Theories are nice, but the true reallity can be observed only on real results, which are measured with proper tools.

This is 1996XJ Phantom in VSC setup:

BTW: momentally it is the most efficient good documented Phantom result.

And this is my tunned old Kingmann New hammer with q-changer in backbottle setup:


Momentally both these markers are ~ in middle of Top 10 documented efficiency on MCB (Known MCB 12g paintgun efficiency records up to 2013) and the difference between them is very, very small (7J of kinetic energy = ~1 shoot with 225 fps).

Imho it shows clearly that there are simply way more important things what affecting efficiency than the powerlet placement.

Anyway, that are the results with "rapid fire" trought chrono - with slow firing I can get more than 70 "usable shoots" per powerlet from my Hammer on field. If you can get similar shot count with VSC, then even when there is perhaps some efficiency limitation with VSC, it does not plays role in practical paintball, imho.

Last edited by 3022; 06-04-2013 at 11:54 AM.
3022 is offline  
Old 06-04-2013, 03:56 PM   #22 (permalink)
Stock class SPAM
 
808Jackal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI

3022,

How is the VSC you are using set up aside from VSC? Freak bore, fluted hammer, etc? I have gotten my HSC phantoms to 35-43 shots a 12 gram at average 275 fps. I want to get more out of them though. Using fluted hammer, bobbed valve, red main spring, stock valve and inserts.
808Jackal is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 02:39 AM   #23 (permalink)
Summer's a-commin'
 
cobyrne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dunedin, NZ

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
Imho are there good documented results (complete chrono tests) which showing that you can get with VSC at least better results than having most of the other users with droupout. The difference is only in the top records, which are most of the users/owners not able get.

Yes, the most efficient nelsons are commonly with "dropout" setup but it is imho more likely because it is a little easier to work with these markers and make the tunning with them (disassemble them, seal them and such like). "Dropout" is KISS like. That is imho the major reason why "efficiency masters" using this setup.
Ahh, I see now. Thanks.
__________________
MCB Feedback
cobyrne is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 05:33 AM   #24 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Czech Republic (middle Europe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 808Jackal View Post
3022,

How is the VSC you are using set up aside from VSC? Freak bore, fluted hammer, etc? I have gotten my HSC phantoms to 35-43 shots a 12 gram at average 275 fps. I want to get more out of them though. Using fluted hammer, bobbed valve, red main spring, stock valve and inserts.
Sorry, Im not sure if I understand you question fully.

The mentioned Phantom is owned and tunned by "1996XJ" member here on MCB. So if are you interested about this marker, then it will be best put your question to him... the mentioned result he has published in this post here: Snipers on 12 grams / on CO2 Discussion but there were only few other informations about the marker.

Im only humble "colector" of the results and Im appreciative for every valid information what looks be usable.

I do not own Phantom (they are very expensive and less common in my country), so I can speak in detail about them... but Im infomed about the his basic construction, about results of others and Im sure by that that most of the things are here very similar like in other nelson style markers.

The my New Hammer which I have compared with 1996XJ Phantom VSC in my last post is described here: Kingmann New Hammer SC efficiency tunning report

If you look about the advices for Phantom efficiency tunning, then there are imho many other, more suitable threads and even persons.

In this threat I have on mind only that the space for expansion in the valve body is commonly not critical and that the differences between backbottle and VSC setup are commonly very small, when are the markers good tunned. I know articles and advices which say it is different, but along all what I have seen in practice they look be simply more wrong than correct.

Last edited by 3022; 06-05-2013 at 05:39 AM.
3022 is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 09:28 AM   #25 (permalink)
Red=Moderator
 
Schmitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albany. NY

Efficiency of a 12 gram is directly dependent on the length and volume of the path between the 12 gram and the ball.

It has been shown in the past that if you can tune a nelson that uses a drop out valve so that it has a very quick hammer/valve movement that you will get more shots per cartridge. I can't go back and replicate these multiple proofs as I have no phantom to do it with, nor the parts necessary... and at this point I don't have the time. But there are other people here that can speak to the efficiency with a 12 gram on systems where you do NOT allow pre-expansion of the CO2.

Things to consider... liquid CO2 has a greater amount of potential energy than gaseous CO2. If you can maintain the CO2 for as long as possible in a liquid state then you can preserve that potential energy and use it as a gain in efficiency. If you can maintain the liquid state up to when it is released from the valve and starts only slightly expanding in the powertube and then fully expands (converts its energy while changing to a gas) behind the ball, you will have the largest gain in efficiency.

How can you do this?
1: shorten the length and thereby the volume of the path between cartridge and ball. Best and easiast available way to do so is with a dropout changer.

2. Further reduce the volume of the path by using a smaller diameter power tube.

3. Use a stronger valve spring so that the valve pulse (open and close) is faster, allowing for less waste.

4. use larger ports on the power tube so that during the shortened valve pulse CO2 transfer is smoother and induces LESS turbulence. Turbulence can induce change in state/phase of the CO2 causing a loss in efficiency. This is the hardest part to make any gains/reduce losses.

The reason for the vertical air adapter (and use of a 12 gram changer) was more for speed but also, in warmer climates it's very hard to keep CO2 in the liquid phase, so it's almost necessary to pre-expand to gas. Also once tournaments allowed tanks you could run a very light set-up with a 3.5 oz aluminum tank up front and your worries of efficiency were relatively moot.

But there is merit in operating a system on liquid (especially if you restrict yourself to 12 gram use). You can see it in pumps and in some of the early semi-autos (Tippmanns, Montneels and even VM-68's). But, now it is harder to tune for it's (liquids) use using factory parts because of the long prevalence of Constant Air use and the conversion to HPA in the late 90's. It is basically a lost art.

E
Schmitti is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 11:24 AM   #26 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Czech Republic (middle Europe)

Schmitti, I think that you are right in most of your statements, but regrettably that what fails here is thier connection and the importance that they really having in practice - there is really much/many truth in your words, but the conclusion imho do not coresponds fully with the practice.

I will not disprove you concrete statements, instead it will be imho better for us all to point here on some findings, which should show the existing limitations better:

- in full filled powerlet (= with 12g of CO2) only ~70% of the internal space is filled with liquid CO2

- when you fill the internal space what is in powerlet with only gas CO2, there will be only less than ~2% of the fill (2% of 12g => 0,24g)

- the most efficient (SC) pump-markers having CO2 consuption below 0.25g per shoot

These "hard facts" can be easy verified by anyone, pesonally, in quite short time, if he is enought motivated... and from them everyone can imho easy derive:

- how much it will harm the efficiency, if will be the internal space between powerlet and cupseal "bigger than necessary".

- how long is possible maintain the CO2 in a liquid state in major part of the valve chamber, when you consuming CO2 with firing.

I will not make conclusions here intentionally.

Other thing, quite unpleasant, little arguable, unclear, but very important is that hightly pressured (~850-1100 psi) CO2 behaves not like common liquid on atmospheric pressure (~15 psi). It is hightly "explosive" and strange unit, which is not so stable and not so affected by the gravitation like water in glass. Therefore you can/should/need use/work with liquid CO2 different than with common liquid. Liquid CO2 allows you less or more in different conditions and aspects.
3022 is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 01:15 PM   #27 (permalink)
Red=Moderator
 
Schmitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albany. NY

I'll try to answer you points and then throw some additional info at you

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
Schmitti, I think that you are right in most of your statements, but regrettably that what fails here is thier connection and the importance that they really having in practice - there is really much/many truth in your words, but the conclusion imho do not coresponds fully with the practice.
OK.... not really sure if you are misunderstanding physics... or I'm not describing physics and it's applicability well enough. See below for what I hope is a way of describing it better. But seeing as I've been playing around with this stuff since 1993, and then received an education that dealt with physics, some thermo dynamics, some fluid flow, etc... I think I do understand how this stuff works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
I will not disprove you concrete statements, instead it will be imho better for us all to point here on some findings, which should show the existing limitations better:
I'll take a stab at these....


Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
- in full filled powerlet (= with 12g of CO2) only ~70% of the internal space is filled with liquid CO2
Not sure where you came up with this number. But it sounds realistic... it may be less, it may be more. I know that others have done some of this work previously and floated it out on the internet. I'm not sure if you actually measured this yourself or are just regurgitating a number that you saw someplace else. But stating your source would be helpful.

Also... it seems like you either don't understand why 70% is filled with liquid ... or you think I don't know. BUT... when you try to fill a powerlet with CO2 to a pressure of 800 to 900 psi, a large portion of the CO2 will change to liquid or in this case will remain as liquid (because they actually inject liquid because trying to inject it as gas from a liquid source and then wanting it to convert back to liquid wastes a tremendous amount of energy and therefore power and therefore money). CO2 when subjected to pressure at a certain temperature within a defined volume will react certain ways.. that is physics.

Your 70% number will probably actually change a slight amount based on temperature outside of the powerlet, but not much. So lets just call it 70% for a number to have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
- when you fill the internal space what is in powerlet with only gas CO2, there will be only less than ~2% of the fill (2% of 12g => 0,24g)
Not sure what you are getting at and your math doesn't make sense. Are you saying that because of the density of expanded CO2 gas (less pressure and less density), that you would have less molecules of CO2 if only expanded CO2 were present in the volume of a powerlet?

OK.. that's physics and I won't argue with that. But it's not relevant to this discussion as basically that only occurs when a the contents of a powerlet have been subjected to a significantly reduced internal pressure. A pressure that is basically unusable for our purposes. Also... measuring the weight of a powerlet only filled with gas is going to require a scale only available in laboratory settings and it going to give a value far below 0.24g... unless you are saying that an empty powerlet weighs 0.24g and not having one in front of me, I think that is too light. Either way, I don't think the number you provided is correct unless you can provide a fair amount of math and readings to back it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
- the most efficient (SC) pump-markers having CO2 consuption below 0.25g per shoot
OK... BUT. You can't measure how much weight of CO2 a gun uses per shot. Not just be dividing shots achieved by weight of gas (which is what it seems like you did). It is more fair to say that you can get X many shots per cartridge/powerlet because in reality, you have lost CO2 (weight) through losses inherent in the system and CO2 lost due to available usable pressure (ie those last shots that don't make it to field velocity and land only a few feet in front of you). Claiming a weight per cycle is unrealistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
These "hard facts" can be easy verified by anyone, pesonally, in quite short time, if he is enought motivated...
Your hard facts above? only if someone has a very good understanding of physics and has access to either their own charts/tables and books or a very good computer program to help them calculate behavior of CO2 at certain pressures and volumes etc. "Anyone" does not have the ability or understanding to prove the hard facts you have listed above... except for the last one, which I showed is better to show in a different manner than you stated as it is more realistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
and from them everyone can imho easy derive:
Based on my last statement, that's far easier to say than actually do.... ie it's a very large leap to assume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
- how much it will harm the efficiency, if will be the internal space between powerlet and cupseal "bigger than necessary".
This is all based on experimenting... multiple iterations based on changing out system variables which have been done by others previously.... or we could create a really cool computer model to do it. Or if you don't want to accept the possibility you just don't change anything and say it's not possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
- how long is possible maintain the CO2 in a liquid state in major part of the valve chamber, when you consuming CO2 with firing.
Well.... if the system (valve chamber) were static and you never received additional CO2, then you would starve the system for pressure and you wouldn't get more liquid CO2 and your CO2 would rapidly change to gas..... But, because, as you stated earlier, you start with a power let charged with an approximate 70% volume of high density CO2, your valve body upstream of the cup-seal basically becomes equalized with the pressure of the powerlet (once pierced)... if you can reduce the volume of the valve body then you are maintaining smaller volume under a similar pressure which forces more of the CO2 to remain in a dense state for longer... the the system (valve chamber upstream of the cup seal and the powerlet) will lose pressure due to firing (and consumption of CO2) and a greater amount of the volume will exist as less dense CO2.... or less of the volume will remain as dense CO2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
I will not make conclusions here intentionally.
But you have... they just weren't correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3022 View Post
Other thing, quite unpleasant, little arguable, unclear, but very important is that hightly pressured (~850-1100 psi) CO2 behaves not like common liquid on atmospheric pressure (~15 psi). It is hightly "explosive" and strange unit, which is not so stable and not so affected by the gravitation like water in glass. Therefore you can/should/need use/work with liquid CO2 different than with common liquid. Liquid CO2 allows you less or more in different conditions and aspects.
I don't think you actually understand CO2 under it's various properties. Or you do but are trying to describe them in a way that counters my points.

It's certainly not unpleasant, arguable or unclear... it's physics. CO2 does exist as a liquid. That is a phase where it is in between gas and solid*. Sure it's not water (I don't know if it will form a meniscus as water will in a container... that would be very neat to try and observe) and it only exists as a liquid under certain pressures and/or temperatures... and so long as those do not change it is very stable and far from explosive.

*We won't talk about CO2 as a solid because it isn't important to our argument, because it's not usable As a side note to this side note, I have been around when people have changed the phase of CO2 in a tank due to rapid firing and external temperature and the CO2 has turned to a solid inside their tank... so cool!

For our uses you either fill a bulk tank with liquid CO2 and then fill Constant Air tanks with liquid from that bulk tank (a process that involves chilling the tank so that you can actually fill it with liquid from a siphon tube in the bulk tank) or you have a powerlet that has been filled at a factory with liquid CO2. But either way, when we have CO2 for our use, it is in liquid form... because as I hinted at above, if you wanted to have it as gas only well you'd need a BIG tank.

And I totally understand that it's not exactly like water (in an unpressurized tank only exposed to surface pressure and gravity... not that gravity has too much effect on a liquid, unless you are sloshing it around in the cup.. or the ocean) In reality we are dealing with a density issue due to pressure. If you allow the CO2 to remain dense, then you can gain as much efficiency from it (CO2) as possible. It is far easier to call it liquid as it is closer to liquid than gas... and in some instances guns were set up with siphon tubes in tanks specifically to draw on the liquid in the bottom of the tank, rather than the gas at the top.

When you introduce things like expansion chambers (whether as an actual chamber or length of hose/line) or Regulators, then you are introducing density reducers... a method for the CO2 to change fully to gas (yes sometimes liquid can get through.. but not often). You then have a less dense form of CO2 which has less energy than it's more dense form because it is now at a constant pressure, rather than a liquid in a tank at a pressure that changes through removal of the fluid (a fluid is a gas or liquid) enough to evaporate an amount of liquid to equalize pressure again.

You can not argue that. That is physics.

You also should not argue, but you can try, that setting up a gun to use the more dense CO2 is a possibility. It is very possible. It may not be easy (again due to part availability, time involved in experimenting, etc), but it is possible.

If you run dense CO2 you will get more usable shots and can shoot further into the 12gram/tank.

I won't argue this further. This is something that has been proven previously by others back in the 80's and 90's.

E
Schmitti is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 01:17 PM   #28 (permalink)
Pop-Up Ninja
 
Murf425's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brandon, FL

Because that's how God and Mike Cassady wanted it, and thou shalt not question either of them. Therefore, stats/math don't matter.
__________________
My Feedback Thread

Go ye therefore to all the nations, baptizing them in copious amounts of paint.

Proud member of Team On Target.
www.teamontargetpb.com

Last edited by Murf425; 06-05-2013 at 01:20 PM.
Murf425 is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 01:26 PM   #29 (permalink)
Red=Moderator
 
Schmitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Albany. NY

Quote:
Originally Posted by Murf425 View Post
Because that's how God and Mike Cassady wanted it, and thou shalt not question either of them. Therefore, stats/math don't matter.
That's two separate arguments right there.

I know you are trying to be funny, but Mike did produce phantoms is a way that provided benefits for the needs at the time in a manner that was easily repeatable and profitable. Trying to fine tune a gun to perform in a desired manner not fully inherent in the design (but achievable) is up to someone else.

E
Schmitti is offline  
Old 06-05-2013, 02:29 PM   #30 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Czech Republic (middle Europe)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmitti View Post
I'll try to answer you points and then throw some additional info at you

...

If you run dense CO2 you will get more usable shots and can shoot further into the 12gram/tank.

I won't argue this further. This is something that has been proven previously by others back in the 80's and 90's. ...
It is sad, but I have strong feeling from your post, that your need to show some superiority above me is here bigger than you real knowledge...

When you are so sure with your proven facts from the 80's, then you can perhaps explain us why is the current most efficient marker known on MCB, with good documented velocity test, is russc Sniper with regulator... Snipers on 12 grams / on CO2 Discussion

I think that I have said enought in this thread.

Last edited by 3022; 06-05-2013 at 02:33 PM.
3022 is offline  
Closed Thread

  mcarterbrown.com » Paintball » The Armory » CCI

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC