Reply With QuoteI don't understan the animation. It's in Russian :P
Here is an animation from Lentyay!
http://paintball.newkamikaze.com/scheme.php?id=34
If you have any questions ask away.
I don't understan the animation. It's in Russian :P
Okay, so now that I'm seeing it in action, tell me again why you're putting the spring in to partially close the spool valve. Was the operating pressure of the shot not sufficient to close the valve completely on its own? What's the delta between valve air pressure and shot air pressure? Now I'm not quite sure what's going on in the high pressure/low pressure interface area.
That is what makes it so fast.It's in Russian
WAY back when I was calculating valve chamber and energy usage per shot I did up the CAD for a bunch of guns and realized, in no matter what arrangement in a dump chamber design, say a mag to a Shocker Sport, if you calculated the total area when the ball was 8" down the barrel you ended up with a 50psi fill. When building my first prototypes I found my initial calculations were off by the same 50psi. The last 50psi is wasted.why you're putting the spring in to partially close the spool valve.
I played around with springs in my first designs (which had really long pistons) and they just retained a bit more air - leading to some hp versions getting a very good shot count. So with this setup, with about 2-4lbs of backwards push it traps enough air to save the bottom 20% or so of the cycle. That is a good bump for a simple spring - and it also helps make it consistent and self dwell. Which worked in part to walk around the DYE and SP patents.
Not sure on valve air pressure vs shot air pressure - the 'valve' is really the piston. It is fairly complicated for 3 o-rings and a spring, I understand! But there is no high pressure/low pressure interface area, it is all ASA supply pressure air. Only at the 'trap' portion of the action is there a difference in the pressure, and at that point the whole gun resides at about the same pressure. The action differential is based on a -0011 o-ring pushing back along with a spring adding about 2-4lbs, vs a -0013 oring. When the pressure on the front/back drops to a low enough pressure the valve moves back and traps the rest.
1) is this the mechanical or the electronic version, OR is there any difference in the animation of the operation of the gun?
2) i forget, is the torque macroless, or how will the air run through the gun? and if its macroless, will the dump chamber or air reservoir filled through the spool or lower tube?
3) looks good. i can't wait to see the Shiva in animation. i still remember when you shown it on the Tinkers' guild and haven't forgotten about it these past eleven years or so.
The air isn't doing anything at the action as far as I can tell, the spring senses the pressure in the same way the geo2 stalk does.
What size rings on the slave spool? Sort of like the dm tail rings I imagine, since your chamber fills through there. Any max rof issues like the original geo?
Both. There is no difference.1) is this the mechanical or the electronic version, OR is there any difference in the animation of the operation of the gun?
Macroless. It runs up the back of the grip, to the switch, and that is it. The dump chamber is filled through the piston. It is both the firing system and the internal air passage and also the 'rammer' - all in one.2) i forget, is the torque macroless, or how will the air run through the gun? and if its macroless, will the dump chamber or air reservoir filled through the spool or lower tube?
Thanks! Yeap, I have one more gun format to do, then it is time for the Shiva.3) looks good. i can't wait to see the Shiva in animation. i still remember when you shown it on the Tinkers' guild and haven't forgotten about it these past eleven years or so.
Exactly.The air isn't doing anything at the action as far as I can tell, the spring senses the pressure in the same way the geo2 stalk does.
Slave spool? The solenoid/switch thingy? Running 4x1mm. I had a .25" on the mech version, and used both a straight solenoid and then a solenoid to switch on the electronic versions. The straight worked for some applications, but I liked the air cutoff setup with the solenoid as I have it now. We have some slight changes to the dynamics, so we will see. Right now with a 8mm cycle time I am not to worried. When I had a unbalanced spool I found I had a really long dwell, but with the air balance it worked like a spring, so dwell went from 22ms down to 8ms. Max in some setups was easily 25bps+. I didn't have a way to test beyond that.What size rings on the slave spool? Sort of like the dm tail rings I imagine, since your chamber fills through there. Any max rof issues like the original geo?
do you mean 8ms cycle time as in the dwell time on the board, or as in actual measured cycle times
8ms is the solenoid dwell time. 8ms for a cycle time would be insane. And hard on paint
when i talked to Billy Wing from Dye he said that the original NT's had a complete cycle time somewhere around 12ms which is why they were so hard on the brittle paint initially where a normal DM is relatively slow at around 45ms.
Is it just me or does anyone else have issues with Lentyay's page (or files from his page) not loading at all...? I wanna see this animation too :-(
Posting Permissions