Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-18-2011, 04:35 PM #1
Pnuemagger
OVER THE LINE!
 
Pnuemagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NE Ohio
Stacked Tube Spoolie (CAD Rendering)

I'm sure the concept has been discussed before, but my merlin extrusion finally came and before I had a chance to start turning it into a PCP gun, this idea popped into my head. Would something like this work? It seems like a novel idea and should be heck of alot easier to fabricate than the aedes copy I designed. Now I'm not sure which design to pursue.

This is just a rough rendering with no frame, air lines, or bolt. The bolt would basically work like any typical stacked tube bolt except the bolt pin would lock into a spool instead of a hammer/ram. Operation is an unbalanced spool so simple 3 way setup can be used... remove the air in the front of the spool and the unbalaced spool goes forward (like an ION/freestyle/mag/G4). There should be enough volume in the lower tube for 175-200 psi operation... so an LPR may not be necessary. The air input is not continuous as the travel of the spool seals off the air input.

Good idea or not? Suggestions?
Is this worth machining versus a copy of the aedes?

EDIT: DESIGN UPDATED

Last edited by Pnuemagger : 07-22-2011 at 08:16 AM.
Pnuemagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 07-18-2011, 04:52 PM #2
y0da900
Nerdivore
 
y0da900's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Plattsburgh, NY
Air springing an Aedes is a neat concept, but I prefer this one - I think it has a lot more potential. If you are willing to go with an atypical port layout (think PGP) and a slightly longer bolt stroke, you could eliminate almost all post valve expansion volume which could help your efficiency greatly. Personally, I would ditch the extension on the front and make it longer to the back to provide a somewhat more streamlined air path, but I'm strange like that

FYI, this applies.
y0da900 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 05:55 PM #3
Pnuemagger
OVER THE LINE!
 
Pnuemagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NE Ohio
What do you mean by "atypical port layout"? A PGPis just a sheridan valve and the air is routed into the top tube almost right behind the breech... kind of like mine, right? I admit I've never seen a PGP or how one operates. But I can't image a shorter more direct air path to the paintball... my airpath goes straight to the top tube and only has to travel the length of the breech within the bolt.

If this could work, I'd like to do it because it only requires a few "large" parts and many fewer orings than a poppet and pilot and air-spring bolt. Plus, integrated air paths become easier to layout than my aedes.

And I do think you're right about streamlining the airpath... the momentum of air rushing from two sides of a dump chamber and then having to make a 90degree turn doesn't do me any favors on flow efficiency. I might end up ditching the front volumizer for an LPR... I'm unsure of how smooth a spool like this might operate at 200psi. Although the math works out to 14-17lbs for the stroke & return so maybe it's not all that bad at full pressure.
Pnuemagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 06:08 PM #4
y0da900
Nerdivore
 
y0da900's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Plattsburgh, NY
PGP vents in front of the bolt, not through it.
y0da900 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2011, 06:19 PM #5
thefarmguy
 
 
thefarmguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: St. Louis
cool design, (to me) it looks like you don't need that o-ring that's sitting just in front of where the bolt pin catches, also it looks like the valve hole could be bigger on the spool rammer sleeve thing
thefarmguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 06:57 AM #6
Pnuemagger
OVER THE LINE!
 
Pnuemagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NE Ohio
farmguy...
The valve hole is a .188" dia x .375" long slot. It's not actually round. It has a similar area as a .281" hole but only takes .188" of spool travel to fully open up. And the oring in front of the bolt pin seals the air input passage from leaking out the back when the bolt is fully forward. In the rearward positon, as you've noticed, it does nothing.

Yoda... I finally found a PGP animation. I see what your saying there and I really like what I'm hearing, doc. You... You...
Pnuemagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 10:37 AM #7
y0da900
Nerdivore
 
y0da900's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Plattsburgh, NY
Honestly not sure how to do the transfer port taking advantage of that, you would want something that isn't going to be a speedbump for the ball. The port in a PGP is tiny and likely why it isn't an issue. It would probably take some form of manifold on the bottom of the gun to seal it properly afterward, but a slot may be a safer approach than a hole.

Then again, it may move fast enough that it is not a problem. A few other methods that should help between cupping the bolt face to provide a slight lift from the bottom of the bore or a wire running along the bottom of the bore across the hole acting like a wire detent so that it can't fall into the hole at all.
y0da900 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 11:39 AM #8
pbjosh
In February -
 
pbjosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
pbjosh is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
pbjosh works for a Paintball manufacturer
Yep. It should work just fine, a version is covered under (my) patent 7610907, figure 16, 17. Atypical port layout in figure 26.

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=hpjJAAAAEBAJ

The way the air cut off works is covered by the orginal Matrix patent now owned by Dye.

The concept is great, and it is a good looking design you have there.

Josh
__________________
"If you build it, they will run"

Colin @ Deadly wind: “We need to stay away from each other. You scare me.”

Owner of Patent #7610907: Paintball marker action assembly
pbjosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 12:25 PM #9
y0da900
Nerdivore
 
y0da900's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Plattsburgh, NY
I've made the comment before Josh - but that is one hell of a thorough set of exhibits/figures in your patent

And I am not certain that the air shutoff is covered by the Omega patent. The claims in that patent (5613483, is it wrong that I no longer need to look that number up?) reference the following:
  • first and second chambers through which the piston (what they call bolt) extends
  • longitudinally extending passages

Both of those statements, pertinent to all claims in the patent, imply that it applies (or was intended to apply) to inline/coaxial arrangements.

The axial offset in this and your patent, coupled with the bolt and valve being separate mechanical entities would lead me to say that it does not apply.
y0da900 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 01:12 PM #10
pbjosh
In February -
 
pbjosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
pbjosh is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
pbjosh works for a Paintball manufacturer
From how it was described to me, the patent covers two different chambers and the communication of air between them with the movement of the bolt. It was in the descriptions IIRC. Have to re-read it. But it was worded vaugely enough to cover any sort where the air cut off in the operation of the bolt.

That was a very complete patent - and expensive. Still paying on it.
__________________
"If you build it, they will run"

Colin @ Deadly wind: “We need to stay away from each other. You scare me.”

Owner of Patent #7610907: Paintball marker action assembly
pbjosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 01:18 PM #11
y0da900
Nerdivore
 
y0da900's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Plattsburgh, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
From how it was described to me, the patent covers two different chambers and the communication of air between them with the movement of the bolt. It was in the descriptions IIRC. Have to re-read it. But it was worded vaugely enough to cover any sort where the air cut off in the operation of the bolt.
As with any patent, it is somewhat open to interpretation in both the coverage of the claims and the intended coverage of the claims.
y0da900 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 02:16 PM #12
Pnuemagger
OVER THE LINE!
 
Pnuemagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NE Ohio
Well, I tried to put the valve port in front of the breech but it just didn't work out. It made the overall assambly a little larger but, more to the detriment of the design, made the ram/bolt sail design more convoluted. I either had to move the whole piston to the rear of the spool or make the front of the spool unecessarily complicated or elongated.

I instead decided to make the solenoid air routing much more efficient and added dual .125" air feed paths to the dump chamber (the solenoid is fed off of one of the ports and outputs straight up into the bolt sail area). Plus I'll have no LP hoses to bother me. But I'll have to settle for a traditional valve hole placement and bolt - which I'm fine with. I'll have to modify the solenoid, but that should be easy. Final pressure should be closer to 200psi without the silly volumizer (total dump chamber is 1.15 in^3) but as long as it's under 225psi or so, the noid should work well.

I think a day or two more of tweeking, tolerencing, and analysis and I'll be ready to start machining. I think the milling as shown is pretty decent (considering I'll be doing 100% manual machining). Rendered below is the spool forward and backward position showing the noid placement and a WWA Veritas barrel for size reference.

Click for fullsize:

Last edited by Pnuemagger : 07-19-2011 at 02:39 PM.
Pnuemagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 02:25 PM #13
Pnuemagger
OVER THE LINE!
 
Pnuemagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NE Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
Yep. It should work just fine, a version is covered under (my) patent 7610907, figure 16, 17. Atypical port layout in figure 26.

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=hpjJAAAAEBAJ

The way the air cut off works is covered by the orginal Matrix patent now owned by Dye.

The concept is great, and it is a good looking design you have there.

Josh

PBJosh,

Would you mind if I made a one off for myself (seeing as the IP is already yours)? I skimmed through the patent yoda posted earlier. It was refreshingly well illustrated and understandable. Also, if you don't mind my asking, have you got around to actually making one yourself and does it work? Any trouble I might run into?

Joe
Pnuemagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2011, 03:46 PM #14
pbjosh
In February -
 
pbjosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
pbjosh is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
pbjosh works for a Paintball manufacturer
Pneumagger - You will need to sign some paperwork I don't have written up yet. Better PM me.

I have several built in various fashions, none like this yet. I have 2 build in existing bodies, 2 more built in specific bodies, and then 1 more (plus extra parts) on the way from Doc. If you take a look at the Project D on this forum you will see it.

Josh
__________________
"If you build it, they will run"

Colin @ Deadly wind: “We need to stay away from each other. You scare me.”

Owner of Patent #7610907: Paintball marker action assembly
pbjosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 09:58 AM #15
BlackHammer
 
 
BlackHammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Canadia, eh?
Wait... I am most likely wrong on this but :

I thought that patents only applied to commercial applications.
The logic being that if someone patented putting meat between slices of bread, then he would be the only one allowed to sell such product (or license it), but he couldn't start going into peoples homes and fining mothers for packing sandwiches in their child's lunchbox. How do you enforce a patent on non-commercial personal uses?

Of course, I'm an architect, not a lawyer or notary. I sometimes tend to think everything in life should be simple and clear. Hehe.

Regarding the design itself : it seems like suck a simple idea (make a stacked-tube spool-valve marker) that I wonder why none is currently marketed.
__________________
If EUROPEans come frome Europe and AMERICAns come from America, then do CANADIAns come from Canadia?
BlackHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 10:21 AM #16
pbjosh
In February -
 
pbjosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
pbjosh is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
pbjosh works for a Paintball manufacturer
Blackhammer: The patent only applies to commercial applications in other countries. In the US, look to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_...ted_States_law

Here is an example of how nuts it really is:

http://www.overthecounterculture.com...-infringement/

In this case the patent covered the water bottle and a cage, and while the water bottle only lasts 1/5th as long as the metal cage, replacing it causes the patent to be infringed. So, to even make that gun he need permission from the patent holder.

Don't worry, I will be nice to him.

As for why it isn't on the market, I am working on getting it there right now (Project "D" in this forum.) SP was working on a version as the driveline in the Impulse, but they couldn't get it to work well. I know a few other people have popped up with the idea here and there, but the market... it isn't very innovative really. Most of the gun designs are still in just a few formats, with just a few layouts.

Soon though. Rather soon.

Josh
__________________
"If you build it, they will run"

Colin @ Deadly wind: “We need to stay away from each other. You scare me.”

Owner of Patent #7610907: Paintball marker action assembly
pbjosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 03:57 PM #17
Pnuemagger
OVER THE LINE!
 
Pnuemagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NE Ohio
Hey guys, I have a design related question...

For my 3-way style operation with the noid directly under the spool... the noid fills/vents air directly into the ram chamber with only about 0.2" of passageway air travel. This is VERY short and uses a wide air path. Likewise, the airpath feeding the solenoid is very short and wide as well.

However, do you think it would be worthwhile to put a QEV on there and have the noid sit further back in the frame feeding the QEV/ram using a hose? I see operational similarities between my design and an ION and I know that ions do benefit from the QEV (forward travel can be hampered by slow exhaust).

Points to consider... :

* My design has a much more robust higher flowing solenoid than a stock ion solenoid in addition to being mounted very close to the "ram"... my solenoid setup is more akin to a viking or cyborg (short wide paths).

* A QEV could raise the exaust flow rate Cv to .14 whereas the stock Mac 33 is somewhere around .08 Cv. But having to use a hose to attach a will slow the back stroke due to more fill flow restriction. So I'd nearly double the exhaust flow but input flow would suffer.

* My exhaust volume is not that large compared to a typlical rammer. So the flow (given high pressure) should be pretty quick. Although my design does have more volume than a typical spool like an ion.
Pnuemagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 04:49 PM #18
pbjosh
In February -
 
pbjosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
pbjosh is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
pbjosh works for a Paintball manufacturer
I don't think you will often get to the point where the cycling speed is, in real world use, affected. I think only in testing will you be able to see the advantages with one over the other.

Kind of like which supercar is faster. Even if one is just a bit faster, the chances where you are going to be able to use that is very low. Go with what is simplest, and if there is a problem, try the other.

I think the number of variables you will be addressing before you get to that point are rather large.

Josh
__________________
"If you build it, they will run"

Colin @ Deadly wind: “We need to stay away from each other. You scare me.”

Owner of Patent #7610907: Paintball marker action assembly
pbjosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 05:02 PM #19
Pnuemagger
OVER THE LINE!
 
Pnuemagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NE Ohio
Well no, I doubt the difference will be evident. But to be honest I don't really play paintball all that often. Maybe once/twice per year. I was thinking more of overall performance... even with something like the SP Ion the quicker dwell means better efficiency, consistency, and battery life.

I do agree with starting simple. I could easily modify the manifold mount to a QEV with a tap, barbs and hose. Modifying a QEV design into a manifold design might be a bit tougher. Plus I have a feeling that directly mounting the solenoid will have better performance (and reliability too).


Josh, Spittle, Yoda,

What do you think about making the spool out of delrin or nylatron and using 1mm metric orings on it? It would cut that mass in half and but don't know if it could take the beating. And the 1mm orings only have a .039" thickness so I could thin some of the walls out for more control of forces and gain more volume too.

Joe

Last edited by Pnuemagger : 07-20-2011 at 05:06 PM.
Pnuemagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 05:27 PM #20
y0da900
Nerdivore
 
y0da900's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Plattsburgh, NY
I would make room for a QEV personally - the speed that the valve opens has a lot to do with efficiency. Your making the exhaust port on the valve have a squared off leading edge should help as well. Given that the spool isolates the chamber, a QEV will also make it that much more viable to operate mechanically.

Delrin can be more difficult to hold tight tolerances in than aluminum, especially when you are making things thin walled. I'd do the proof of concept in aluminum, and figure out how to robustly lighten it up (possibly with plastics) after working the other kinks out.
y0da900 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2011, 05:35 PM #21
pbjosh
In February -
 
pbjosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
pbjosh is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
pbjosh works for a Paintball manufacturer
I think the delrin would flex, and you would get more o-ring rub. With the large amount of surface area any speed advantage you might have had (which would be small) would be canceled out, it might even seize the spool.

I don't see much advantage in the switch of material - though the orings might reduce stiction. Also in that vein, the smaller 1mm orings are generally not considered okay for moving components? I think they might be fine, but there is a reason most manufacturers don't use them.
__________________
"If you build it, they will run"

Colin @ Deadly wind: “We need to stay away from each other. You scare me.”

Owner of Patent #7610907: Paintball marker action assembly
pbjosh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump