[mrpresident2107]

Originally Posted by Gisgo09

Cool to see where they went from the original patent filing to now. This is the most I've been intrigued by a gun in a long time.

I second this...it has been a long time since something has sparked my interest this much!

[Spitlebug]

Originally Posted by Lurker27

Doesn't that result in electrical over dwell? The system compensates mechanically, but I'm not sure i totally see the advantage of introducing a second sensing system. You need a really fast reacting noid to makes feedback system work, don't you? Time delay like pneu lag is a real b to work with in controls

Granted its just electrical power being used in that system, but still, if electronic over dwell is ok it seems to me the advantage over a fixed number are limited.

Perhaps the algorithm is more in depth

You sir, are a cheeky bugger.

[new ion?]

Originally Posted by Spitlebug

You sir, are a cheeky bugger.

You're on here?!?!?!

[Spitlebug]

Originally Posted by password1

Don't get me wrong, 1600 shots is good for a spoolie and there are plenty of people out there willing to pay extra for aesthetic features like a 'smooth' shot, shiny colors, unique 'engine', or a pretty milling job.

Guess I was just really hoping for some new tech that improved performance or at least a marker with good efficiency. Definitely disappointed in Josh's posts which indicate it's nothing innovative and it's just an iterative product designed to fund the next gun.

I know. I know. Your company motto; Don't like it? Don't buy it. I'll reserve judgement until the PBE release. Even if still disappointing, I'll still have hope for the next one.

You eluded this next marker (Shiver?) being special. Any chance you could elaborate or give us some indication what you mean? Hopper on top? Magazine fed option? FS capable? Is it ready? Do you have a release date set?

FYI, to everyone reading the above quoted post - this all comes from a certified TROLL who delights in nothing less than calling other people down. Reminds me of another poster who frequents the same haunts: Dr. S. Holmes

Posting history indicates as much.

Originally Posted by new ion?

You're on here?!?!?!

Indeedy I am. Gotta keep tabs on projects I like.

[Captain!]

This is probably the first new gun I have been excited about in a long time! Genius!

[PandasEverywhere]

Still waiting to see the finalized product, as of now it is looking great though.

[password1]

Originally Posted by Spitlebug

FYI, to everyone reading the above quoted post - this all comes from a certified TROLL who delights in nothing less than calling other people out[?]. Reminds me of another poster who frequents the same haunts: Dr. S. Holmes

True, I have been known for calling people out for BS. Is that trolling? Wouldn't that make you a troll as well?

You only figured out two? Can you guess what my other forum names are?

OOooh. Here's a good example of BS..

Originally Posted by J4 Paintball

For simplicity with paintball gear, in*lbs.

In a full 69/45 tank, about 300,000 in*lbs.

Just multiply the volume in the tank by the pressure.

PV=E is an old myth. Check out P0E's posts in this thread for the correct amount...

Nelson Valve Evolution

[J4 Paintball]

Hahaha! Yeah, P0E's numbers are fantastic.

But I trust Tom Kaye pretty good, when he verified my numbers and usage back in 2000 or so. Easy numbers to work with, hence why I don't use newtons, and back checking emperial usage, plus calculating volume chambers I prefer the in*lb units instead of newtons and related, easier to figure. 16,000 potential shots per tank would make guns, what, 12.5% efficient at best? Funny. I might try and find the AO thread, but I am on my phone. It is on the old AO site, google it, pbjosh and energy usage per shot. We also figured out the energy used to fire a ball, mind you a 3.2 gram ball, they are lighter now so a gun needs less the 122in*lbs per shot to get one out the barrel (if 100% efficient) they used to need at least, with most guns using 225in*lbs per shot at that time? They are down to 2.7grams now for some of them? Anybody have that figure?

Been a while, might be nice to revist all of those numbers again, fresh figures and all of that.

[Lurker27]

P0e has the horrible assumption of isothermal flow, when in paintball markers it's mostly adiabatic. It is mixed, of course but to suggest that markers have a long way to get more efficient is fallacious

[edbori]

Interesting concept. Looking forward to seeing the finished product.

[password1]

Lurker,

Regardless of the thermodynamic process (adiabatic or isothermal) used to convert tank energy into ball energy, the tank's potential energy starts out the same. The isothermal process was initially mentioned to explain a way to derive this solution and because the gas temperature before/after compression is equal thanks to those huge heat sinks and fans on the compressor. The adiabatic process was also mentioned, although such a high internal tank temperature is not something anyone would see.

Even if we were to assume USING that energy had to be ENTIRELY adiabatic, the posts explained a simple scenario where cooling inefficiencies are compensated for by using a spring as an intermediate energy storage device to heat the gas charge prior to each shot.

If you want to disprove PV=E, simply calculate now much energy remains in a tank after it's volume doubles. Imagine this 'tank' is a cylinder and the piston just moved while applying a force. Energy in the cylinder remained the same (assuming you use PV=E) yet the piston performed work!

Don't worry. I'll let the both of you take credit for discovering this abundant free energy source.

Josh,

I guess it's good to have hero's, but better to learn from mistakes and set your own path IMHO.

Found that AO thread and several others where you state, 'trust me, PV=E is correct". Any real rebuttal to the P0E posts or shall we continue trusting you?

[Lurker27]

http://faculty.wwu.edu/vawter/Physic...alProcess.html

All of the discrepancy in P0E's math is due to heat flows - we are violently releasing air.

Now, obviously, there ARE heat flows into the gun - they get cold; your tank gets cold. However, we don't have the time to take advantage of it in this system. Especially at ROF. Now, your best bet for heat flow is going to be at the tank. Could we model the heat flows in the system? Sure, but no one does. So, yes, I know, PV=E is not strictly correct. However, it's far closer and more practical as a useful number than P0E's number. See: every dump chamber ever designed.

[esse_prometheus]

To get off the current topic, is there any chance that the Torque could be released with luxe/impulse barrel threads in the future?

[7paintball]

Originally Posted by esse_prometheus

To get off the current topic, is there any chance that the Torque could be released with luxe/impulse barrel threads in the future?

That would be nice

[password1]

Originally Posted by Lurker27

http://faculty.wwu.edu/vawter/Physic...alProcess.html

All of the discrepancy in P0E's math is due to heat flows - we are violently releasing air.

Now, obviously, there ARE heat flows into the gun - they get cold; your tank gets cold. However, we don't have the time to take advantage of it in this system. Especially at ROF. Now, your best bet for heat flow is going to be at the tank. Could we model the heat flows in the system? Sure, but no one does. So, yes, I know, PV=E is not strictly correct. However, it's far closer and more practical as a useful number than P0E's number. See: every dump chamber ever designed.

That's the same link you posted on MCB. Would like me to explain any of it?

At least you're getting somewhere. Backpedaling on PV=E is a definite start.

So you now agree with P0E's energy numbers, but think paintball markers MUST largely undergo an adiabatic process starting at atmospheric temperatures and therefore be poorly efficient.

Correct?

Just because PV=E results in a number that's slightly higher than your best (1400 with the new Ego?) doesn't mean it's correct or even worth mentioning. Implying it is in some way valid is nothing but silly intellectual posturing. In a similar fashion to pretending it's all too advanced to discuss.

Oh, please point out exactly what's wrong in P0E's math, if possible. Best I can tell it's all in the link you posted.

[maohyang]

I think this is also a good.

[NeCanes]

Ill take the lv1 no matter what the pen =is equals out to

[PaulE2Cocker]

Originally Posted by NeCanes

Ill take the lv1 no matter what the pen =is equals out to

Ur the few. hideous halfassed marker lv1
Ha.

[Lurker27]

Originally Posted by password1

That's the same link you posted on MCB. Would like me to explain any of it?I have a degree that included 2 semesters of thermo and a semester of Pchem. I understand fine. I'm trying to advocate for nuance.

At least you're getting somewhere. Backpedaling on PV=E is a definite start.

So you now agree with P0E's energy numbers, but think paintball markers MUST largely undergo an adiabatic process starting at atmospheric temperatures and therefore be poorly efficient.

Correct? I agree that the largest possible amount of energy extracted from the tank would be under isothermal conditions. I vehemently deny this is the set of conditions in a firing paintball marker

Just because PV=E results in a number that's slightly higher than your best (1400 with the new Ego?) doesn't mean it's correct or even worth mentioning. Implying it is in some way valid is nothing but silly intellectual posturing. In a similar fashion to pretending it's all too advanced to discuss.

It's valid under the adiabatic assumption. That's all. I don't know if you do any engineering, but you want to make your assumptions reflect a worst case situation in order to maintain a factor of safety. Just ask PBJosh, here. When we calculate a volume required to propel the paintball at a given pressure, it generally comes out fairly close. There isn't a factor of 8 missing, which would be the case under the isothermal assumption. I've done far better than 1400, but I don't think I'm getting 3 cases from a 68/45 any time soon.

Oh, please point out exactly what's wrong in P0E's math, if possible. Best I can tell it's all in the link you posted.

It's not the ARITHMETIC that's wrong, it's the assumptions. You only get the comically high shot count in isothermal expansion. Feel the air coming out of the barrel - it's cold. That conclusively proves that the expansion is not isothermal. The gun and tank cool off too, because they're donating heat. It's interesting to do the back of the envelope calculation on how much heat energy is recovered, just by assuming a tank is a hunk of metal lowered to a certain temperature. I don't think you get near the shot counts P0E has suggested, though they're higher than PV=E. If you want to talk about taking a nuanced approach, that's fine, I agree! But you can't just talk about the isothermal number without talking about heat flows.

Josh, I'm sorry. You're a Chem E as well, I'd like for you to chime in.

[Gisgo09]

Originally Posted by password1

Lurker,

Even if we were to assume USING that energy had to be ENTIRELY adiabatic, the posts explained a simple scenario where cooling inefficiencies are compensated for by using a spring as an intermediate energy storage device to heat the gas charge prior to each shot.

How would that work at psp rate of fire?

POE isn't wrong in theoretical fairyland. In the real world he's way off.

Also how would the piston in your theoretical tank move without heat loss? If there is heat loss then the pressure changes. So the PV=E equation changes and you're not dealing with exactly half the pressure if you double the volume.

I went to business school and never got past algebra 2. If I understand this ****(mostly), you should as well or stop talking.

[Italian Mafia Shots]

I like turtles.