|The Dead Zone Paintball Related Chat|
| ||Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|08-14-2013, 11:17 PM||#1 (permalink)|
Perfection will suffice
Join Date: Oct 2008
What's it going to take to get some peace and quiet around here?
Have been thinking about this for some time now, and with all the talk of noisy markers, I want to ask in the other direction.
Not about markers, but about barrel design.
Specifically, what does it take to produce a truly quiet barrel? Mann's test indicated some massive sound signature differences from the same marker, and the PPS dual spiral ported barrel came out on top, with the stock Trilogy barrel and the SP teardrop also doing very well.
And even though materials are an important factor, they are obviously not the most important, since the PPS barrel is brass and still is significantly more quiet than a number of CF barrels.
So let us leave aside for a moment the issue of materials and focus just on the business of porting. Assume a metal tube. No fancy affixed gadgets, i.e., raincovers, or whatever. Just a metal tube.
Now, using only porting, make it truly whisper quiet. Any size, any number, any configuration of holes.
What would it take? What would it look like? There has to be math on this, and if there isn't, there should be.
This is MCB. We have the brains. We have the skills. We have the technology. This should have been sorted out eons ago by the industry, but hasn't. There is enough brain trust on this site to put a paintball field on the moon. In the past. We can figure this one out.
Again, to be clear, I'm not asking about markers. I don't care about this marker or that marker, or how quiet or loud this one is, or that one. I also don't care about anecdotal evidence of how quiet this or that barrel is, or the sneaky friend you have who could shoot into a microphone and still not be heard. The only thing that matters is the math that gets us there, and the hard data that confirms or disconfirms it.
Now it may be that certain valve or bolt types might prefer a different porting configuration. But there surely has to be a ballpark we can start in. Barrels that already exist, and which have low signatures, are a good place to begin. But I want to go off the map, into fog and monsters.
What I want is a barrel that, measure for measure, marker for marker, valve for valve, bolt for bolt, paint for paint, day for day, gas for gas, is light years beyond the quietest barrels made, simply as a function of its porting configuration.
What do you all think?
|08-15-2013, 01:03 AM||#2 (permalink)|
Join Date: Mar 2013
It is indeed possible, but your efficiency may drop off. An optimized overall design should be possible but your porting sizes will have to be different depending on the firing pressure of the gun. As for the porting itself, the best bet is variable sized porting to compensate for the pressure drop of the air as the ball travels down the barrel.
There is some math you could use to support this, but honestly I think you would have to get an experimental basis of what worked first then use the math to fine tune it. Even then it would really just give you a correlation with some serious fudge factors involved, not a direct path forward or way to compare between designs. I could probably rig up a nice excel calculation sheet based on porting size and location (length, not around) but it would take a fair amount of experimental data to fit the assumptions. Air is a pretty easy gas to work calculation with. It would help to give an idea about what is more important to the sound signature (does anyone already know?) eg velocity, pressure, or volume of the air leaving the porting.
As far as bore size goes I'm shooting in the dark, but I would think that a single sized underbore would give you the best way to optimize the porting design even though an overbore should be quieter. Quiet + performance you'd have to do stepped.
Another idea that I really have no basis for: directional porting. Would porting at a 45 angle back towards the gun channel the sound that direction?
Last edited by Jmorell818; 08-15-2013 at 01:24 AM. Reason: Spelling
|08-15-2013, 01:19 AM||#3 (permalink)|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ontario Canada
The flasc Testing done on bore sizes has some strong indication that Bore size effects volume detected at the end of a barrel (Decibel meter)
overbore is much quieter than the same barrel at a tighter bore, Keeping with what we know, You could probably do a 5-7" unported underbore, then step to a front (I'm assuming the front is where the magic happens)
you would probably be in the area of a 0.700 bore'd front, with A metric ton of porting. like... 10" of Solid non stop Penta-ported, Quad rows, Octa Columns... holes everywhere.
|08-15-2013, 01:55 AM||#4 (permalink)|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portland Metro
Sorry no idea on the math.
Not "disconfirms" but "refutes"
Sorry again, couldn't move past that.
|08-15-2013, 10:09 AM||#5 (permalink)|
Perfection will suffice
Join Date: Oct 2008
But why press for 'refutes', vice 'disconfirms'?
|08-15-2013, 10:30 AM||#6 (permalink)|
Trails Of Doom
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Oxford, Ohio
Any discussions on this topic can be misconstrued into flying in the face of certain regulations pertaining to volume reduction of projectiles...
So that limits the ability to spend much time on it, or even talk about it, as no one wants to get busted going there.
but, there are ways to significantly reduce barrel noise, with minimal standard porting if someone were so inclined.
Look into sound dampening materials for car audio. They have all kinds of testing that shows how different metals will react to noise, and how to cut that noise signature. I've done some messing around with dynamat and can say the results are pretty incredible...
|08-15-2013, 10:48 AM||#7 (permalink)|
Paintball Ballistician :P
Join Date: Mar 2008
I'd be wary of any significant claims of noise reduction.
Here's why- It's not a straightforward test (i.e. one gun, two barrels), for several reasons.
You'd be surprised by the amount of noise that is emmitted by the body of the gun (bolt knobs, QEVs, hammer / ram slapping, etc). This noise can significantly over-shadow the influence of many barrels.
The pressure and volume characteristics of the gun can also be a significant influence not just in the noise coming out of the barrel, but, in the noise coming from the body of the gun.
Finally, I'd not rely on FLASC's testing for the absolute answer. He tested a 9" control bore, followed by varying barrel lenghts of .70 ID barrel with varying amounts of porting. It's a snapshot of data that requires more data from other techniques.
My personal observation is that an Eigenbarrel, on a mini/axe, is quieter than any other combo I've heard. But, it's still a ways to go before I'd call it 'suppressed'.
FN303SD Totmacher 13 | SP 'Woodstalker' Ion | 1989 Line SI Bushmaster SI Deluxe
First Strike Round Field Listing | External Ballistics, FSRs and PBs | My Feedback
|08-15-2013, 11:44 AM||#8 (permalink)|
Perfection will suffice
Join Date: Oct 2008
Not sure I follow you. Decreasing the volume of paintballs makes for a lower sound signature? And people are afraid to talk about making paintballs smaller for fear of being 'busted'? Are there laws against making paintballs smaller? Are paintball manufacturers listening in, and going to scoop us off to some interrogation room? "Alright, buddy. We know you've been shrinking paint. Show us your lab, or we'll keep you here 'til you rot!"
Wait. You aren't talking about "raincovers", are you? Check my post. I explicitly mentioned that this is not what interests me. Raincovers in my opinion are both silly and profoundly ugly. We aren't talking about sound suppression, but rather sound reduction. Moreover, the rules say no additional materials, do-dads and gizwidgits. Only porting.
Perhaps the first post was overly hyperbolic. By 'light years beyond' and 'fog and monsters', I'm simply looking for sub-70db country, as I think this is a good bump, and entirely possible.
Mann's test provides data on sound signatures for a variety of barrels, and it's interesting to consider design differences, and the signatures they produce:
Paintball Barrel Test
|08-15-2013, 12:53 PM||#9 (permalink)|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Valrico, FL
I have been thinking about this same thing for a long time. I was thinking of using different set ups to confirm the results on multiple platforms. My idea was to run something like a spyder which can run on both high and low pressures and has several bolt designs available. This would allow for multiple configurations to receive data from.
|08-15-2013, 01:58 PM||#10 (permalink)|
Ambassador of the sport
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: North Carolina
A lot of the problem is perception too. That's why the math is so important. I had a setup that I thought was really good at de-locating the sound from one of my markers until we did some hard testing on it. Now I'm not so convinced. I don't think anyone's numbers can be trusted because no one takes the time to truly test the entire field of available parts, engines, barrels, etc. Even the most expensive guns come out of the minimal amount of r&d necessary to make them work. Why do you think that most 1st gen guns have tons of problems which the manufacturer usually addresses later?
Same thing with barrel noise. Nobody has really done the testing, so nobody can really claim to be the quietest.
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|