New Marker Concept. - Page 2 - PbNation
Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

 
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit  
Old 08-07-2007, 08:50 AM #22
leed
Moderator
 
leed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Raleigh, NC
leed is a Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmansr25sd View Post
none of this will work how you think, sorry to break it to you
a noid can't flow enough air to fire a paintball/won't ever be consistent like that, anything that closes the feedneck can chop balls, trap/sliding doors also have a whole host of feeding issues

edit i completly agree with the post above me, worry about the design first then superflous parts and details
Clearly you have never seen, touched, or used an mQ valve.

The problem with the trap door is this, it forces paint that is not in the breech to move up. If it doesn't, you end up with the problem of chopping paint.

With that in mind, you could incorporate another "elevator" -- for lack of a better term -- that sits at the bottom of the breech. When the door begins to close, the elevator drops, with the ball, this will allow the trap door to not be forced to push paint up, assuming it is timed correctly, which, to be honest, would be rather difficult.

The concept that jonotwist gave is more or less brilliant. A simple design, and not very hard to improve. From my perspective, it is essentially the same shut off as is a bolt, but a little more hasslesome. With paint inconsistenices, the sizes of paintballs will vary, and smaller ones may sit too far in and will chop on the rotation. -- But then, you could apply something found in some of the new bolts out there, which is a ramp. Instead of shearing a paintball, there is a ramped edge on one part of the rotating breech to help push the ball up (like that found on an Ego bolt).

Another problem I see is space, and sealing. You could put an o-ring/gasket around the feedneck opening, so when it rotates it seals against a wall (or put the gasket in the wall), but it leaves it open to shearing. Then again, I guess if the tolerances are tight, you don't really need to seal it. -- Another would be the odd kick. Since the chamber will be spinning left, the kick (could) be rather odd and give you kick to the left and right. However, this also makes things a little easier..

Instead of having the breech revolve right, then back to center, then back to right again when firing two shots, you could reduce any kick that might come from this at high ROF's by having the breech revolve both left and right (right, then center, then left). At high ROF's, this will help reduce any perpendicular kick as the momentum can be continued when firing one shot right after another.

One of the last problems I see is if the breech rotates while firing, you might get some spin to the left or right and have balls curve.

As far as what should be used to spin the breech. If it were to spin in only two directions (center, and right), you could simply use a ram, and have the breech have a little ledge that ramps (or spirals around the breech), and then also have a spring (or air pressure) that keeps it pushed center, and when the ram is actuated, it pushes on the ramp, and because of how this sort of thing works, the ram will in turn twist the breech, when actuated again, the ram can return, and the breech will follow.

Another problem that would arise, is how eyes would work. You could cut a slit into the breech and have eyes on the body that see through the slit when the breech is centered, and it wouldn't necessarily be an area for leak when the breech is rotated, as break beam eyes are set at the bottom of the chamber, so it might not hit the feedneck opening when twisted.

As you can see, I am liking this concept of the rotating breech . Granted, you will need two solenoids..

With a design like this, you could probably have a body between the size of a shocker and the size of a mini (thickness wise).
__________________
This.

Last edited by leed : 08-07-2007 at 08:53 AM.
leed is offline  
Old 08-07-2007, 12:36 PM #23
dmansr25sd
 
 
dmansr25sd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Middleton, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by leed View Post
Clearly you have never seen, touched, or used an mQ valve.
funny you say that because it is clear that you are the one who knows nothing about mq valves, take a look at an animation buddy or pick one up yourself, it uses a noid to merely vent air and unbalance a poppet, the solenoid itself is not a solenoid valve and doesn't flow any air that works to propel the ball or move any internals, please know what your talking about before you try and act all e-tough
http://www.zdspb.com/media/tech/animations/mq1.gif

oh you also don't know anything about the ice epic, it used a sliding door to close off the breach, a much better design than a trap door, and it had to have mulitple doors included to match different size paint, and it had a chamfer on the leading edge to mitigate its effects on the ball stack, still had feeding quarks that make it unreliable and unpractical for todays speed expectations. And roto breachs also ecounter some of the same feeding problems, not to mention their difficulty to machine and work practicaly.

You sir need to stop posting like a jack ***
__________________
#04 RPI Paintball
RPI '11
Mechanical Engineer

Super informative ego page

Last edited by dmansr25sd : 08-07-2007 at 03:29 PM.
dmansr25sd is offline  
Old 08-07-2007, 04:57 PM #24
jonotwist
fistfull o'sunshine & joy
 
jonotwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NE ohio
Annual Supporting Member
jonotwist is playing at Living Legends VII
jonotwist plays in the APPA D4 division
jonotwist supports Empire
well as far as machining goes, a freak insert (plus attachments) like the chamfer stated above, or detents, simply anything along those lines are all thats needed.
take the insert cut your holes, slots ect. add machined attachments.
yes it can be done this way. the breech doesnt have to be at a perfect seal. against the body. the breech can simply be itself the spool, breech and bolt part of a spool valve. but then you would be killing th purpose of no bolt. but using an MQ and a timed noid (with LPR) you could effectively get the no bolt part of my idea
__________________
Speak, if you're worth the listening
vintage old feedback High Tech Shiny Feedback

Breakout Actions Sports Wenies Buy Elsewhere

Last edited by jonotwist : 08-07-2007 at 05:02 PM.
jonotwist is offline  
Old 08-07-2007, 07:57 PM #25
dmansr25sd
 
 
dmansr25sd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Middleton, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonotwist View Post
well as far as machining goes, a freak insert (plus attachments) like the chamfer stated above, or detents, simply anything along those lines are all thats needed.
take the insert cut your holes, slots ect. add machined attachments.
yes it can be done this way. the breech doesnt have to be at a perfect seal. against the body. the breech can simply be itself the spool, breech and bolt part of a spool valve. but then you would be killing th purpose of no bolt. but using an MQ and a timed noid (with LPR) you could effectively get the no bolt part of my idea
You do understand the axis of the rotating breach has to be offset from that of the breach or you can have the rotating piece larger than the diameter of the ball in which case you have to cut different segments out of the body or an insert piece for the ball to rest on the same axis as the barrel, but the rotating piece would rotate around a larger bore. You will never overcome the inherent feeding issues of the rotating breach and there will always be a level of complexity to machining a rotary breach just because the ball's circumfrence will have to sit on a different size bore than the revolving piece.

by the way i posted a rotary breach concept a long time ago, if you cared enough you could search it but here is the picture just for kicks
all in all no bolt designs are really pretty much useless when you can just use a bolt and generaly get much better flow characterisitcs in addition to the trouble-free feeding
__________________
#04 RPI Paintball
RPI '11
Mechanical Engineer

Super informative ego page
dmansr25sd is offline  
Old 08-07-2007, 08:01 PM #26
jonotwist
fistfull o'sunshine & joy
 
jonotwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NE ohio
Annual Supporting Member
jonotwist is playing at Living Legends VII
jonotwist plays in the APPA D4 division
jonotwist supports Empire
oh, dude. i completely agree with you. I have at least 3-6 different designs i would try to prototype before doing a boltless design. im just chiming my 2 cents in on my ideas for a boltless design, btw what program are you using for that pic auto cad/desk
__________________
Speak, if you're worth the listening
vintage old feedback High Tech Shiny Feedback

Breakout Actions Sports Wenies Buy Elsewhere
jonotwist is offline  
Old 08-07-2007, 08:33 PM #27
dmansr25sd
 
 
dmansr25sd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Middleton, MA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonotwist View Post
oh, dude. i completely agree with you. I have at least 3-6 different designs i would try to prototype before doing a boltless design. im just chiming my 2 cents in on my ideas for a boltless design, btw what program are you using for that pic auto cad/desk
ya, just the poster never posted "what he meant" lol but ya anyways boltless ideas are fun to think about but really don't provide performance gains
i would never, ever use auto cad for any 3d work...its prodesktop i believe it is an old ancestor of proE, but i made that a long long time ago i use solidworks exclusivly now
__________________
#04 RPI Paintball
RPI '11
Mechanical Engineer

Super informative ego page
dmansr25sd is offline  
 




Posting Rules
Forum Jump