Hey, big decision, need advice - Page 5 - PbNation
Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

 
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit  
Old 12-30-2003, 02:51 PM #85
FallNAngel
Vicious Circles
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: right here
Annual Supporting Member
FallNAngel is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
FallNAngel is playing at Living Legends VI
FallNAngel is playing at Living Legends VII
FallNAngel supports DLX Technology
no worries
__________________
If you want to set off and go develop some grand new thing, you don't need millions of dollars of capitalization. You need enough pizza and Diet Coke to stick in your refrigerator, a cheap PC to work on, and the dedication to go through with it. We slept on floors. We waded across rivers. -John Carmack

FS: G6R $525 shipped and paypal'd
FallNAngel is offline  
Old 12-30-2003, 10:56 PM #86
sethstoddart
Anti-Suck
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
 has been a member for 10 years
[quote]Originally posted by Bimmer323is
The more you lower the cocking pressure, the slower the cycle rate. Is that what you really want? The trick is to know where to strike the balance.[/QUOTE

bingo....
thats the point, lowering your reciprocating mass allows that same force to push less weight allowing the same speed at a lower lpr setting (that force).... cmon, we established that a long damn time ago. We arent debating that, we already know it has an effect, what we want to know is how much. one more time, no knowledge..... none.
sethstoddart is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 02:26 AM #87
Bimmer323is
 
 
Bimmer323is's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cleveland, OH
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by FallNAngel
Well, the first time he did his version of the test, he got a result different than you. The second time, he got similiar results as you. This leads him (and myself) to believe that it's how much cocking mass you have on it already.
To begin with, the cocking mass, arguably, between cockers do not deviate that much. I've assembled and disassembled more autocockers than I care to remember.

Since the Turtle is what got us on this thread, I'm still waiting on someone to tell us the cocking mass difference of an actual Turtle conversion. I would like to have at least three sets to come up with an average cocking mass savings.

One of biggest challenge to making the experiment work is setting the lowest reliable cocking pressure on the LPR. This critical step takes time and patience. If you hose this part up, the experiment will yield inconsistent result.

Quote:
Originally posted by FallNAngel The 45g may be an exact estimate of how much cocking mass is taken off. But in order to get results like Stud did, you'd have to have more weight on there to get it. [/b]
Ok, can we ALL agree from now on that for the sake of argument, 45 grams IS the exact cocking mass reduction of a Turtle conversion. If we can agree, then lets not have any more talk of increasing this weight. We'll use 45 grams (8 US quarters). Unless someone can give us some actual Turtle numbers.

Quote:
Originally posted by FallNAngel
Yes, but that test you did could be wrong and/or pointless. Like I said, all it showed was that by removing 45g from the cocking mass that the marker could not go from a non-cocking state to a cocking state. That's it. THAT ISN'T EVERYTHING!! Let me explain it this way. I'm using numbers off the top of my head, so don't go nuts if they're way off. [/b]
You seem like a nice guy with good intentions and is eager to learn. I appreciate that. But it's clear that you do not fully understand my experiment. You've drawn all your conclusions from reading this forum. Perhaps that is where you and I have this disconnect. You need to do some hands on experimenting on your own. I promise you, my friend, some of the results will shock you.

Ok, Lets stop for a moment and verify something. My understanding is that the purpose of this entire discussion is to answer one question: Can lowering the cocking mass by 45 grams (remember, we're going to agree for now that this is fact) allow you to lower the lowest reliable cocking pressure.

FallenAngel, are we on the same page? For now I'm going to assume we are on this.

Quote:
Originally posted by FallNAngel
You have a cocker that they want to perform your test on with the 8 quarters. You strap the 8 quarters on and and set the LPR to it's minimum reliable cycle pressure and make a line. [/b]
Ok, so far you're following. Remember, reliable means the lowest point where you can fire 20 shots in a row with where it fires normally in EACH of the 20 consecutive shots. Not 5, not 15, not 19, but TWENTY!!!! This is a critical setting and you have no idea how much of a pain in the *** it is to get it to this point.

Quote:
Originally posted by FallNAngel
Next, you lower it to the point where it doesn't cycle and remove the 8 quarters. The marker still won't cycle reliably. [/b]
What do you mean by "still" won't cycle reliably ?? Remember, before the quarters are removed, the gun is ABLE to fire at least 20 shots in a row reliably. The ONLY time the marker won't cycle properly is at the second LPR setting.

Ok, this is where you got lost. When I designed my original experiment, I had a bad feeling that a lot of people are going to miss the importance of the second LPR setting and how that point was derived.

Alright. This second lowered LPR setting is not arbitrarily set. I did not just haphazardly lowered it to any setting. Had I done so, the experiment would be totally meaningless.

However, this was not the case. This setting was to find the minimum pressure where it would NOT cycle properly. I repeat, the minimum pressure where it would NOT cycle properly As with the first setting, it is required to be able to be consistent in ALL 20 consecutive shots. If you want numbers, this PSI would be VERY close the PSI for minimum reliable cycle pressure

This all critical pressure setting is where it the lightened cocking mass COULD cycle reliably. IF it done so, then it would prove that a lightened cocking mass does allow you to lower the minimum cocking pressure.

This is the hardest part of my original experiment. It was hard initially for my friend who I walked the procedure through over the phone. It took me almost 5 minutes to get him to understand the concept and now to set the LPR. Therefore I do not blame you for having a hard time understanding this when you're only reading and not actually performing the experiment. Reading and doing are two totally different worlds.

Actually, any further discussion about my testing method is moot because I switched to Slush's method as soon as I read it. I appreciate it for its simplicity. I've done all my experiments this way since. I'll take any shortcuts to any goal any day.

Quote:
Originally posted by FallNAngel
2. You have supplied no numbers. NONE. [/b]
Neither did Slush, yet you don't seem to mind.

Doesn't matter. This test better off without numbers. With numbers, you have to factor in. 1. How were the numbers collected.
2. What's the error rate +/- and distribution.
3. Interpretation of the numbers requires one to have an intimate understanding of the equipment being measured and knowledge of other variables can influence the numbers.

One more thing about numbers, if someone tell you that the cocking pressure for whatever setting is say 60 PSI or 35 PSI or 72 PSI or whatever, he is telling you only partial truth. Unless the LPR is designed by NASA for an interplanetary application, ALL regulators including the LPR will work in a RANGE, usually expressed in +/- X PSI.

Quote:
Originally posted by FallNAngel
This is why I'm saying we should be going by Studs test, even if the results are close between the two tests (eg. it may fail at 50psi, but cycle fine at 53). With his test, you can get usable information, all we can get from your test is the pressure that you can reliably cycle at and one that you can't. [/b]
Again, I am so glad that Slush come up with his test method. It greatly simplified the testing. It eliminated the second LPR setting entirely. As I mentioned above, since he posted his testing methods, I have done all my experiments based it. Yet I still get the same result as I did with my more complex method. Both testing methods if understood correctly will do the same thing. There is more than one road to Grandma's house.

Quote:
Originally posted by FallNAngel
His will give us the minimum cycle with and without the extra weight. [/b]
You are suggesting his method will give us two different settings - "with and without extra weight" ?

Actually, Shush's method will only give us ONE setting. Remember, his method sets the LPR only once, that's the beauty of it!! He requires the LPR be set to the minimum reliable cocking pressure WITHOUT the extra weight. Then you ADD the weight (remember, his method reversed the sequence of the extra weight) to see if it will still cycle reliably. In all my experiments based on his method, they did.

Quote:
Originally posted by FallNAngel
All I've heard you claim is that you'll slow down your cocking speed. THIS ISN"T TRUE. [/b]
Hey SlushStud, are you out there??? LOL We just had a quick discussion about the effects of cocking pressure on cycling rate. YOU explain it to him. He takes everything you say as gospel, but he won't even believe me if I tell him the Pope is Catholic! LOL

Quote:
Originally posted by FallNAngel
There's less mass to accelerate, so it will accelerate faster at a lower psi. Hell, you'd be able to keep the LPR at your old setting and cycle faster.
[/b]
As I have said about a zillion times and have given a kazillion more examples, the LPR setting's #1 job is to overcome the tension of the main spring!! The cocking mass, with or without being lightened, just go for the ride weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!

P.S. I think we've beaten this poor horse to death. Can we PLLEEAASSEEE move on to a different topic? I'm BEGGING you! LOL.

Last edited by Bimmer323is : 12-31-2003 at 02:31 AM.
Bimmer323is is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 09:58 AM #88
SLUHStud
 
 
SLUHStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Illini Warrior Baby
 has been a member for 10 years
Imma ready for something new!!! What other controversial stuff can we talk about? This was actually the best post on the cocker fourms in 4 ever.

Pat

PS lowering your lpr does slow down cocking to a certian point. I mean yea if its not high enough then it wont actually cock the gun, but once it get to be able to fully over come the main spring and mass of the coking parts and activate the sear, the diffeance in cocking speed is so minor that most people wont notice it. Try this, take your eblade or race, fallen you have an eblade i think, and set the lpr to the lowest possible, and then set the open and close times to the absolute min that you can get and have it recock. The up your lpr all the way in, now you should be able to chnage your open and close times a ms or a couple. . .proof that it is cocking faster. Now the only time i have actually tried this was when i had my old numbers for open and closed saved on my RIP softwear. I knew these were the lowest i could have had b4, then when i got my gun back from pro i tried this out to see what would happen with the lpr all the way in. I could change these numbers down a few ms. . . .then again i dont know if what pro did to the gun had anything else to do with it. They cleaned the main reg and thats about it. . . .so not sure.
__________________
Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do. . . .

Become who you were born to be. . .
SLUHStud is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 10:03 AM #89
SPimpyKid
I'm straight gangster!
 
SPimpyKid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Paintball
 has been a member for 10 years
Yay....how bout we now talk about the weight reduction....lol....just curious to see if you would rather played with a turtled cocker, or the cocker the way it is now. Why?

I would defnitely rather played with a turtled cocker because snap shooting would be much easier. This is important for tourney people but I don't know how others feel about it. So what is your opinon?
__________________
OaklandDogs187
SPimpyKid is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 10:22 AM #90
SLUHStud
 
 
SLUHStud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Illini Warrior Baby
 has been a member for 10 years
Already stated my feelings. . .my millenium is great for me and i would rather use that over a 2k3 shocker, the lightest gun out, or my old dragon timmy, another light weight beast. The cocker feels better to me and infact to light is an idea i have about guns. . .i mean i like to feel some weight to my stuff when i play. I have not held a turtle cocker or messed with one.. . just dont think i would be happy with the weight differance.

Pat

PS i play back on my tourny team, but then on my 5 man i play front so yes i know about all positions and i can snap shoot with the best of them. . .or atleast my lil brother.
__________________
Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do. . . .

Become who you were born to be. . .
SLUHStud is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 12:53 PM #91
SPimpyKid
I'm straight gangster!
 
SPimpyKid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Paintball
 has been a member for 10 years
Lol...good feedback...I respect your opinion also...it's all personal opinion and light weight is the way for me.
__________________
OaklandDogs187
SPimpyKid is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 01:16 PM #92
Bimmer323is
 
 
Bimmer323is's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Cleveland, OH
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by SPimpyKid
Yay....how bout we now talk about the weight reduction....lol....just curious to see if you would rather played with a turtled cocker, or the cocker the way it is now. Why?

I would defnitely rather played with a turtled cocker because snap shooting would be much easier. This is important for tourney people but I don't know how others feel about it. So what is your opinon?
I definitely prefer a lighter gun. It DOES help you with snap shooting. When I play speedball, I almost always use my lighter Rhythm over my Shocker. That's just my preference.

Can you please provide the actual weight reduction of the turtled cocker? If it's signifigant, then THAT could be a reason to turtle your cocker.

On the other hand, just how much weight CAN you safely take off a cocker? You don't want to get a milling where it leaves your cocker paper thin where it would put a hole in the body when it takes a hit. That could ruin your day.

I wonder how many cockers the turtle people have botched.
Bimmer323is is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 02:15 PM #93
SPimpyKid
I'm straight gangster!
 
SPimpyKid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Paintball
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally posted by Bimmer323is
I definitely prefer a lighter gun. It DOES help you with snap shooting. When I play speedball, I almost always use my lighter Rhythm over my Shocker. That's just my preference.

Can you please provide the actual weight reduction of the turtled cocker? If it's signifigant, then THAT could be a reason to turtle your cocker.

On the other hand, just how much weight CAN you safely take off a cocker? You don't want to get a milling where it leaves your cocker paper thin where it would put a hole in the body when it takes a hit. That could ruin your day.

I wonder how many cockers the turtle people have botched.

Lol, defnitely would ruin your day...I'm not quite certain on how much weight is actually taken off as mine isn't...but you can always visit their website....I'll dig it up and post it here for you.
__________________
OaklandDogs187
SPimpyKid is offline  
Old 12-31-2003, 05:19 PM #94
FallNAngel
Vicious Circles
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: right here
Annual Supporting Member
FallNAngel is a Supporting Member
 has been a member for 10 years
FallNAngel is playing at Living Legends VI
FallNAngel is playing at Living Legends VII
FallNAngel supports DLX Technology
Quote:
Originally posted by Bimmer323is
Since the Turtle is what got us on this thread, I'm still waiting on someone to tell us the cocking mass difference of an actual Turtle conversion. I would like to have at least three sets to come up with an average cocking mass savings
Well, you can pretty much take the cocking mass of the turtles as a constant. The backblocks, bolts, pump arms and pins are going to differ *very* slightly (like.. milligrams from the milling on the backblock). The full cockers are what will differ the most.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bimmer323is
Ok, can we ALL agree from now on that for the sake of argument, 45 grams IS the exact cocking mass reduction of a Turtle conversion. If we can agree, then lets not have any more talk of increasing this weight. We'll use 45 grams (8 US quarters). Unless someone can give us some actual Turtle numbers.
Personally, I say no, we cannot agree. There is nothing to support 45g being the exact cocking mass reduction of a turtle. Hell, we don't even know what we're supposed to be starting with. We could go on with 45g, but it will be pointless until we have a better real world estimate (ie. an average weight from different parts)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bimmer323is
Ok, Lets stop for a moment and verify something. My understanding is that the purpose of this entire discussion is to answer one question: Can lowering the cocking mass by 45 grams (remember, we're going to agree for now that this is fact) allow you to lower the lowest reliable cocking pressure.
Let me put it this way. If you want to continue to debate whether lowering the cocking mass by 45g will have an effect on reliable cocking pressure, then that's fine. Until we actually have weighed at least some parts to get a better idea, we cannot make an true estimate of how much it changes.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bimmer323is
What do you mean by "still" won't cycle reliably ?? Remember, before the quarters are removed, the gun is ABLE to fire at least 20 shots in a row reliably. The ONLY time the marker won't cycle properly is at the second LPR setting.
This was a mistype in my post. Reading the line before that, I acknowledge the fact that the marker will cycle at the first mark.


Alright, let me just say this. I suggest until we can at least actually weigh parts that we just move onto another topic as suggested. Until we can verify that 45g is accurate, the tests mean nothing, no matter what the outcome is. After we verify that 45g is or is not correct, we'll need to gauge the output of the LPR at the minimum settings. Sound good?
__________________
If you want to set off and go develop some grand new thing, you don't need millions of dollars of capitalization. You need enough pizza and Diet Coke to stick in your refrigerator, a cheap PC to work on, and the dedication to go through with it. We slept on floors. We waded across rivers. -John Carmack

FS: G6R $525 shipped and paypal'd
FallNAngel is offline  
 




Posting Rules
Forum Jump