Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 114

Thread: History and back-end information of the "little guys"

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Lurker27 View Post
    @JimBobFett - I'm of the opinion a good balanced valve solves that issue a touch better than a lever valve.

    The LV1 has the advantage of being designed from the ground up, the the offset of the rammer tube from the valve bore really makes a big difference in multiple aspects of that gun:

    Improves ergonomics by shifting tube position
    Slows valve open speed (smoother gas release)
    Allows for larger valve face - better flow characteristic
    which in turn enables lower pressure
    which requires higher volume
    which packages nicely because of the lever valve


    Steve and I are fond of saying that when you've got an elegant design concept, features just seem to fall right out of it. I think the Lever is a good example of this.
    I think I hear you... the lever alone doesn't give me all the advantages of the whole system. I'm okay with that though.

    I agree that the right spring, hammer, valve, and pressure combo are the way to go, but unless its a Merlin body with a volume chamber, it seems there is only so low you can go with a cocker before you either can't get enough ball velocity or the ram doesn't have the force to cock the hammer. I know, I know... lower pressure should mean lighter springs, etc... talking out my ass here.

    I'm just looking at it as a way to lighten/shrink the hammer mechanism for less kick, smoother valve motion, and speed (shorter stroke and less mass). I thought about the offset tube position and the solution seems to be that the hammer doesn't need to strike the lever with its center. Or, use a reducer with an off center tube inside for a much smaller diameter hammer... like the LV's. Spring and sear (lighter trigger pull then) or pneumatic like the Osiris or Excalibur hammer actuator. OR, have an exhaust valve body with an offset valve?

    It just seems like it shouldn't be that difficult to make and lend some lever valve benefits to the autococker.

  2. #92
    id love to see a modern take on the epic.

    i love the epic, its as if you explained to an engineer who knew nothing about a paintball, what paintball was. and then you locked him in a room alone for 3 years, fed him etc etc, and he made the epic. its such NOT a gun designed by committee. the operating principle is amazingly simple, but the strange features it also has shows that there was no editing, it was just a guy, making a gun.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  3. #93
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    [QUOTE=JimBobFett;36776]
    I'm just looking at it as a way to lighten/shrink the hammer mechanism for less kick, smoother valve motion, and speed (shorter stroke and less mass). I thought about the offset tube position and the solution seems to be that the hammer doesn't need to strike the lever with its center. Or, use a reducer with an off center tube inside for a much smaller diameter hammer... like the LV's. Spring and sear (lighter trigger pull then) or pneumatic like the Osiris or Excalibur hammer actuator. OR, have an exhaust valve body with an offset valve? /QUOTE]

    If you balance the valve, then go to lightweight reciprocating parts, you'll get everything you want. You're right in that there's a limit to the low pressure/efficiency locus you can get too without increasing volume, but it will definitely be better. The best place to do it would be in the 11/16" Sniper spec cockers.

    Alien PB makes a "morph valve" that's balanced but is trash from an engineering standpoint. I've been side-eying putting these in other platforms but no one cares about it least of all me

    http://www.lurkerpb.com/product-p/g4ev.htm
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  4. #94
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Ryan is spot on with this. The balanced valve gives you the same result in a cocker, and it allows for you to reduce the hammer weight and spring. The newer WGP/Empire bodies and related have enough volume. I was able to get quite a few cockers to run in the 200-300 psi range, without having to run a non-existent valve spring, before they had the extra volume. While keeping the hammer tension light. With just the stock parts.

    I had a setup in a Spyder years ago that was so light I had to make a (short lived) delrin hammer. The Azodin does the same thing.

    Ryan, a true poppet sealed and balanced cocker valve would be smart. I think the market would go for it now. They liked the morph.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 01-25-2018 at 03:20 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  5. #95
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    id love to see a modern take on the epic.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #96
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #97
    Here's where I see a limit though with just lighter hammers and weaker springs... responsiveness can suffer due to the distance the hammer has to travel even with less inertia/momentum. Shrinking the stroke means stiffer springs or a lighter hammer and trying to keep them balanced... too much bias towards a heavier hammer and your spring is slower, too strong a spring to make up for a lighter hammer and now the valve gets held open longer before it can (sometimes ever) close, and more force needed from the ram. By using the lever, it seems that the spring and hammer can just get reduced all together. Less inertia, shorter stroke, less spring tension needed... while keeping the same pressure on the other side of the poppet. Seems like the best way to go since MQ style valves are a no-go.

    Yeah, I should have mentioned... thinking of this as a alternative to MQ's and midget cut bottom tubes. The speed and shorter stroke are what motivated me to think about this.

    It's either that or some high power direct acting solenoids on pulse valves... but I don't think the battery tech is there yet, lol.
    Last edited by JimBobFett; 01-25-2018 at 04:59 PM.

  8. #98
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    I think the degree to which response time is an issue in a sear dropper is probably small. To your point, though, simply reducing the mass along with the spring force to yield the same cyclic frequency is pretty trivial. Reducing the energy needed to open the valve really decouples most of the issues.

    The problem is that the closing force has typically decreased when you do that, which leads to a long litany of problems. A dynamic closing valve like the eigenvalve basically solves that for free.

    There's further games you can play (consider adding mass to the poppet itself, for instance) but I think you'd be able to go far with just a balance valve.

    You could also do a pneumatic version of the mq by adopting the QEV trick I use in the shocker eigenbolt, and then critically dwelling so you don't waste gas.

  9. #99
    "Reducing the energy needed to open the valve really decouples most of the issues."

    Isn't that what the lever is?

    I'll have to read up on those other ideas, thanks!

    A mechanical mq... powered by pneumatics... so instead of a solenoid opening a plunger it's a solenoid controlling a valve to send air to a pneumatic cylinder that moves the plunger?

  10. #100
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    Levers reduce force by changing throw. Energy is conserved. Balanced valves actually change the energy requirement.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •