| ||Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|06-24-2007, 12:55 AM||#1 (permalink)|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: St. Louis
valve/hammer spring kits
wow this is my third post...almost makes one believe ive never owned a cocker in my life.
ok this is something i absolutley know nothing about: aftermarket springs
so all ive ever ran in my markers were the stock springs and valve. i wasnt ever too concerned since i used a 68/4500 and always had enough air to supply my cockers. PLUS, i read on somewhere online that the actual gain from different springs wasnt all that noticable on standard cockers.
now, i want to build my sniper. i want to achieve the best efficiency from a 13 cu n2 tank from wevo pb. i want to be as light as possible, yet have the benefit of n2 in my marker. i was planning on using the stock internals but then i began wondering about using a madman kit.
if my goal for my sniper is max efficiency and all the goodies assciated with changing the springs, would it make a difference if i still use the stock valve? if so, is it that noticable over the stock set up.
thanks once again guys
|07-02-2007, 09:43 PM||#2 (permalink)|
But, back to your question, to achieve maximum efficiency with CO2, you want minimal valve chamber volume, smallish air channels (valve port, transfer port - the one between the lower & upper tubes in the body - and bolt face opening; ideally they should all be matched in size to minimize turbulence), a relatively heavy valve spring with a relatively light hammer spring and a comparitively high operating pressure (anywhere up to 900 PSI - ie: straight tank pressure). Also, you want a relatively heavy hammer. Basically, a heavy hammer being pushed by a light spring will have enough energy (momentum) to open the valve just enough to release enough propellant to accelerate the paintball to 300 fps (or whatever your field limit is). The heavy/light valve/hammer spring combo helps prevent "hammer bounce" (the valve pin pushes the hammer back, and as it's thrown back against the hammer spring, it's pushed forward again, causing an extra "burp" of air used). In 'Cockers, hammer bounce generally isn't an issue because the hammer is immediately pushed back to the cocked position by the pneumatics.
Maximum efficiency with HPA is typically achieved by lower operating pressures (but not necessarily the ultra-low pressures that some folks brag about). The general idea (at least, the way I see it) is that by lowering the operating pressure to, say, 300 psi, one can effectively run their compressed air tank down to 300 psi (which is pretty darn low) before velocity is affected. With a decent-sized HPA tank (45 or 68 ci) and a higher pressure rating (3000 or 4500 psi), efficiency is easier to achieve. If you're starting with a fixed tank size of 13 ci and a pressure rating of 1800 psi, the same rules don't necessarily apply.
Since HPA doesn't have the same expansion rate as CO2, you can't necessarily apply the same rules for efficiency as CO2. Maybe they'd work, maybe not. It's going to take a good deal of trial & error and plenty of tinkering - swapping springs, etc. to find the right combo for your setup. Whatever you do, you have to keep the whole system in mind when making any change. Think about overall airflow and strive to make it as smooth and consistent as possible. Every passage the air travels through between the tank and the barrel has an effect on the overall efficiency.
Porch Monkey 4 Life!
s'ok...I'm takin' it back...
My Feedback Thread
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|