True or False: Phantom works best with co2

[Chuck E Ducky]

CO2 can be just as consistent as HPA as long as you work within the limitations of CO2. Definitely close enough when you factor paint inconsistencies. CO2 shines in efficiency while HPA is more stable at temperature extremes. The idea that Nelson valves only work well on CO2 is just false. They only work well on High pressure people often over look there HPA tank reg input pressure. (When’s the last time you cleaned yours? Or checked it’s output?) When you run unregulated setups maintenance and proper pressures are important.

Stock silver springs 825-850psi input pressure is the sweet spot for HPA and CO2. I can switch between the two with less then a 20fps drop over the crono. With the TPC 1.5 turns in from flush. Giving it plenty of adjustment up or down if you want to get crazy dialing it on over the crono.

[gabe]

it will change do to weather. since colder it is changes how gun acts to Co2 then to hpa

It will change with weather but that doesn't affect shot to shot consistency, just overall velocity. Just adjust the velocity in range and have a good time.

[Chuck E Ducky]

Recharge rate is changed so yes temperature effects consistency. Not just velocity.

If you shoot slower then you can get consistency but it’s a limitation specifically associated with Co2. On a Phantom with bulk Co2 you won’t notice it as much but with 12g you surely do. Colder it is longer you got to wait between shots to get full velocity.

[gabe]

Recharge rate on a phantom...surely you jest.

It's just not an issue. I'll admit that perhaps in very cold environments or under really fast strings of fire on 12 grams you might see consistency issues but that's an issue 100% related to running on 12 grams. If you're doing an apples to apples comparison you are comparing a 12oz or 7oz tank to a 13ci HPA tank. You can't compare 12grams because HPA does not exist in such a small unstable form and if it did then HPA would be absolutely useless at that size whereas liquid CO2 stores far more energy in such a small space.

[Chuck E Ducky]

Again Co2 works great as long as you work within it’s limitations. Limitations that are eliminated by using HPA. I’m not telling people they have to use one over the other. But purely performance the topic of discussion HPA is better even on the phantom. I don't even think my local pro shop Is carrying Bulk Co2 for fills. Most fields have converted to HPA only.

[SignOfZeta]

That's really all there is to it. People have biases and preferences. There isn't a snowballs chance in hell that CO2 shoots more consistently than well-regulated HPA; its pressure is stable while CO2 pressure is chaotic. That's really where I stop thinking about it because there's nothing more important to consider. But if people want to claim otherwise the least I can do is setup the DOE to prove it right or wrong.

Well, if it’s a matter of policy to quit problems at that point there are a lot of issues as an engineer you’re never going to fix, your reputation for giving up being one of them. Declaring a problem over...anyone can do that.

The Phantom’s design was complete and more or less set in stone before HPA even existed. And when HPA was invented Phantom people didn’t run out to get it...because they didn’t need it, still don’t need it. It was for Mags and Cockers and other guns that suffer serious problems with CO2 when shooting massive quantities of paint. HPA was created after the Phantom, to fix problems the Phantom doesn’t have. Once HPA was invented nobody optimized the Phantom for it. It’s all the same as it was in 1989 and the same as basically any Nelson, all of which were done before HPA came around. The only reason why people ever moved to HPA in a Phantom was because the industry has moved so far away from CO2 that adapting the gun to HPA is more convenient for them. So all HPA Phantoms are user hacks (I may be wrong about that...) and anyone who knows paintball knows that the user hacks are INFINITE in their variety.

There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity. The human element and history are also part of the equation and therefore the engineering sphere. You’re doing that thing...like when you go to the doctor and about a pain and he tells you it isn’t real. Or maybe it’s more like when you hook your 8-bit Nintendo to a 100” Vizio TV from Walmart and it looks like crap and generates 800ms of input lag. If you call up Vizio they are just going to tell you the TV is fine and then politely hang up but the user clearly sees the issues since they’ve had that same NES hooked to 12 different TVs over the years and they know what kind of performance to expect.

Your test lineup needs to be labeled #002 and in #001 you need to map all the HPA Phantoms you can find versus each other to determine if #002 is worth doing. The HPA Phantoms that exist are the unknown quantity. We already understand everything else. We know all about CO2, HPA, and Phantoms. What’s going to be crucial is size of line, regulator placement, and anywhere that adds or removes volume between the reg and the valve. CO2 expands as it boils, even as the ball is moving. HPA doesn’t so the volume and pressure you need in the end is higher. Is the gun immune to that inherent difference? User feedback seems to indicate it isn’t.

I personally have no option on the HPA Phantom issue because I have zero interest in fixing a problem that doesn’t exist. I KNOW that my guns shoot great on CO2 so I do give a crap at ALL for modifying them in the slightest. That’s just time taken away from other things I enjoy more, I won’t fall for it. Many people have though and if aggregately they claim it’s not a nice as CO2 was then I think it’s probably not all in their heads.

[Siress]

Well, if it’s a matter of policy to quit problems at that point there are a lot of issues as an engineer you’re never going to fix, your reputation for giving up being one of them. Declaring a problem over...anyone can do that.

You seem to have confused engineering with science. As an engineer, I work within the boundaries of the problem to find a practical solution. In this case, the problem is launching a projectile at a consistent velocity given the boundaries of choice between CO2 and HPA. CO2 has chaotic pressure behavior wrt multiple environmental and usage conditions. HPA doesn't. Use HPA. Done. Any system engineered to use HPA for this purpose can then operate across those environmental and usage conditions without issue.

The Phantom’s design was complete and more or less set in stone before HPA even existed.

Do you have evidence to support that claim? I know it wasn't being widely used in paintball, but I'd bet good money it was widely available for industrial applications so it'd require some adaptation - just like the early paintball guns that used industrial hardware bolted to rifle stocks.

As an aside, this article is a very interesting read about the history of the soda fountain. I stumbled across it while trying to find out when pressurized vessels of CO2 were first used for soda fountains. Here's my favorite excerpt:

There were also cases of rookie soda jerks falling into the vats of sulphuric acid. Or in other cases, they would improperly mix the acid and carbonate resulting in the mixture “bumping”. This would contaminate the carbonated water with sulphuric acid. A cool glass of sulphuric acid was never a refreshing beverage.

And when HPA was invented...

Just for posterity, in case it helps anyone following along, you're referring to the equipment for HPA being made widely available for use in paintball. No one invented either substance, just the means of controlling them; and that was done long before paintball was invented.

The only reason why people ever moved to HPA in a Phantom was because the industry has moved so far away from CO2 that adapting the gun to HPA is more convenient for them. So all HPA Phantoms are user hacks (I may be wrong about that...) and anyone who knows paintball knows that the user hacks are INFINITE in their variety.

A) I moved to HPA because I was booted from a tournament for inconsistent velocity from a 12gram in the early '00s. It was my first stock-class event. Now I only use CO2 when I have to and need to spend an hour trying to remind myself of all the issues it will have and what I need to do to address them. It's my biggest obstacle to stock class events when I actually have the chance to play.
B) Changing springs = hacks?

There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity. The human element and history are also part of the equation and therefore the engineering sphere. You’re doing that thing...like when you go to the doctor and about a pain and he tells you it isn’t real. Or maybe it’s more like when you hook your 8-bit Nintendo to a 100” Vizio TV from Walmart and it looks like crap and generates 800ms of input lag. If you call up Vizio they are just going to tell you the TV is fine and then politely hang up but the user clearly sees the issues since they’ve had that same NES hooked to 12 different TVs over the years and they know what kind of performance to expect.

I have no response to any of that, except to say that I think the word you were looking for is 'psychosomatic'.

Your test lineup needs to be labeled #002 and in #001 you need to map all the HPA Phantoms you can find versus each other to determine if #002 is worth doing. The HPA Phantoms that exist are the unknown quantity. We already understand everything else. We know all about CO2, HPA, and Phantoms. What’s going to be crucial is size of line, regulator placement, and anywhere that adds or removes volume between the reg and the valve. CO2 expands as it boils, even as the ball is moving. HPA doesn’t so the volume and pressure you need in the end is higher. Is the gun immune to that inherent difference? User feedback seems to indicate it isn’t.

I personally have no option on the HPA Phantom issue because I have zero interest in fixing a problem that doesn’t exist. I KNOW that my guns shoot great on CO2 so I do give a crap at ALL for modifying them in the slightest. That’s just time taken away from other things I enjoy more, I won’t fall for it. Many people have though and if aggregately they claim it’s not a nice as CO2 was then I think it’s probably not all in their heads.

Hold up. So you literally have only ever used CO2 on a Phantom and you're this confident that CO2 is more consistent than HPA? And you think I'm the one who's stuck in his head?

[SignOfZeta]

No, I’m saying there are 100 people here saying that and I’m not ignoring them just because I haven’t had the same experience. You can’t be a rocket scientist and an astronaut. It’s impossible. The one has to take the word of the other. Engineering is about that very sort of compartmentalization. It’s not about anecdotal experiences and winning arguments.

[RAGINGCANUCK]

I have a question related to co2/hpa. I recently acquired a phantom that the previous owner claims has been setup for HPA. He assures me it was something to do with the "power piston" and that there is one for HPA and one for co2.

Is this entirely correct, or are there additional orings/seals/springs that need to be swapped for others?

Cheers

[Grendel]

I have a question related to co2/hpa. I recently acquired a phantom that the previous owner claims has been setup for HPA. He assures me it was something to do with the "power piston" and that there is one for HPA and one for co2.

Is this entirely correct, or are there additional orings/seals/springs that need to be swapped for others?

Cheers

A Phantom set up for HPA over CO2 may have a different Valve Spring [which is what I expect he means by "power piston"] but does not have to have a "special one". There are a lot of various combinations of hammer and valve spring combinations that will work on HPA and/or CO2. I do not follow any specific set of springs for a Phantom but empirically set up each marker (Phantom) for the velocity range/pump stroke/air supply I plan on using for that marker. My Spring fed Phantom is set up so that I can change between CO2 and HPA without changing springs and just takes a little adjustment of the TPA to get the correct velocity. Might not be the most efficient setup but very flexible. I prefer to use HPA in cold weather and CO2 cartridges in more temperate weather.

[RAGINGCANUCK]

A Phantom set up for HPA over CO2 may have a different Valve Spring [which is what I expect he means by "power piston"] but does not have to have a "special one". There are a lot of various combinations of hammer and valve spring combinations that will work on HPA and/or CO2. I do not follow any specific set of springs for a Phantom but empirically set up each marker (Phantom) for the velocity range/pump stroke/air supply I plan on using for that marker. My Spring fed Phantom is set up so that I can change between CO2 and HPA without changing springs and just takes a little adjustment of the TPA to get the correct velocity. Might not be the most efficient setup but very flexible. I prefer to use HPA in cold weather and CO2 cartridges in more temperate weather.

Thank you, I really appreciate the info!

I guess I'll have to open her up and check out the springs and things, luckily the previous owner sent me the other springs/piston/whatever for co2 as well just in case, but I see myself primarily using HPA here in Canada, most fields charge a flat rate for all-day HPA, but like $3-5 per fill of co2 on tanks, and 12g's are OVER $1 per piece.

[Handy]

I have a question related to co2/hpa. I recently acquired a phantom that the previous owner claims has been setup for HPA. He assures me it was something to do with the "power piston" and that there is one for HPA and one for co2.

Is this entirely correct, or are there additional orings/seals/springs that need to be swapped for others?

Cheers

I could be mistaken, but didn't the Revolution use 2 different pieces for Co2/HPA?

Either way, I agree with the sentiment that, with a tank set to an appropriate output pressure, switching between HPA and Co2 isn't a problem other than a possible spring swap and TPC adjustment.

I enjoy 12grams because of how light and small the gun is, but I know if I want consistency over anything else, HPA is where it's at. I think my teammates (about 5 or 6 at this point) that are running their Phantoms on HPA for convenience would probably agree.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Siress]

I could be mistaken, but didn't the Revolution use 2 different pieces for Co2/HPA?

Either way, I agree with the sentiment that, with a tank set to an appropriate output pressure, switching between HPA and Co2 isn't a problem other than a possible spring swap and TPC adjustment.

I enjoy 12grams because of how light and small the gun is, but I know if I want consistency over anything else, HPA is where it's at. I think my teammates (about 5 or 6 at this point) that are running their Phantoms on HPA for convenience would probably agree.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

You are correct that the Revolution requires swapping a part out depending on the type of gas used, but the Phantom doesn't necessarily have to swap springs - nor any other part.

[Handy]

Spring swapping (mainspring) seems within the the realm of reasonable just to account for different tank output pressures. Every time I've had to do it I think it's usually to put in a blue spring since the velocity increased to a level that I wasn't able to turn down to a useable level. It seems like that is opposite of the adjusting people usually have to do.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Jonnydread]

Maybe it's the weather conditions where I play or the paint I use, but I have never had to use springs outside of the stock silver ones with both HPA & CO2. I use vertical bulk CO2 all winter though, as long as you're not intermittently getting liquid it doesn't really hurt performance.

[Cunha]

I love c02, and am bummed most fields don't bother with it.

I hate seeing 11 year old renters using a blowback with a 4 pound 48ci steelie tank. Terrible balance and just bummer all around.

Same kid with a 12 oz is styling and gets more shots per tank.

But its easier to run a compressor and some tanks than to fill those tanks with rather costly c02 for overall cheaper for field owners.