Reputation: 0 Neutral
- Active Posts:
- 389 (0.14 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Sniper HQ (180 posts)
- 13-July 06
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Jul 21 2010 05:29 PM
- Member Title:
- Sophomore Member
- 24 years old
- May 4, 1989
- Pepin Wi
- Click here to e-mail me
- Brigade Name:
Posts I've Made
21 July 2010 - 05:29 PMim kinda bored with the idea in this thread (too add to finish a project) but the idea is to have a microswitch corresponding to each firing chamber that whenever the barrel comes around it trips the microswitch causing that specific firing chamber to fire. no board required. also the gear drive system would prevent any sort of maladjustment as gears are toothed and if your calculations are right (calculations you perform before cutting any gear) no more blender, no board required. all you would need to do is assemble it right, which shouldn't be a problem for all the impovershed factory workers of malasia! and if that wasnt enough both systems employ the use of the pre-timed microswitches which should prevent any premature/(postmature?) firing.
but since im bored with this topic, how about we add a microswitch at the bottom of a breach of an EGOten instead of eyes? if your feeder is strong enough (not much problem for a 25g switch) it would press the switch allowing the marker to be fired. would be ideal for a full auto system as you could set the microswitch to interupt the signal from the trigger switch, thus no trigger pull until theres a ball in the breach. also good for full auto fire. think, ball in breach=microswitch engaged, ball out breach=microswitch disengaged. your only limitations for ROF (theoreticaly) would be the feedspeed of your hopper and the cyclic rate of the marker.
21 July 2010 - 05:10 PMlolz good point eskimo, however felix wankel has designed a rotary type engine that converts 40% of gas into usable engery, mazda just makes the less efficient one (that converts 30% into usefull energy.)
21 July 2010 - 05:07 PM3-4 cases from a 13ci... sounds pretty impossible.
lets do some math. a 12g of co2 holds almost exactly 5gal of expanded co2. which is why the technology is pretty limited to 25-30 shots per 12g.
theres 16 grams per ounce. so 5gal*16/12 = 1oz of co2. (33 to 40 shots per oz) looking at aproximatley (does some math on calculator) 6 1/3 gals of co2. = 166 1/3 to 200 shots per oz on the eficiency of a pistol or a pump marker respectively.
on a 20 oz said markers could get 4000 shots per tank. no small achievement. (Tippmanns typicaly running 1200) but that's slightly off topic, a 9 oz is much more comparable to a 13ci tank. a pump or a pistol would get 360 shots. so getting even 1 case of paint off of a 13ci is no small achievement at all.
50 cal conversions anyone???
the fm50 50cal marker gets 1217 shots per 20oz (from the gimilsim website) whereas a tippmann 98 gets 421 shots, meaning a conversion rate of 1217 to 421 so we multiply our 9oz shot count by 1241/421 for aproximatley 1061 shots. meaning the average pistol, shrunk to 50cal would get 1061 shots whereas the average pump would get (calculating) 1271 shots as shrunken.
how the hell do you do it? i cant wrap my head around it. unless you had a pnumatic ram to push the paintballs out of the end of the marker i cant imagine it even being possible! and even then the adition of a longer barrel would only do to add friction slowing down the paintball. the only possible mechanism to get 2-4 cases of paint out of a marker i can think of is first ramming the paintball down the breach at full speed, then, to keep it going out the barrrel, exhaust the piston gasses. problem is, all spool vaulve markers do this already and none have acheaved near 4 cases of paint for 68/45 yet alone a 13/(30?)ci tank. has the technology just been pursued that poorly over the past? is there a new technology in development that can achieve (in a semiauto electropnumatic) air efficiency over that of a half decent pump marker?
not that im saying its not true, just if it was it would blow my mind.
17 July 2010 - 01:11 PMbummer that it's shelved until 2023. not good considering your preliminaries are out on the market. there might be a competitive marker before 2012. 11 years before the release date.
As far as the demensions of a qloader it is roughly equal to the size of a 140rnd pod. it has an adapter after that that allows it to go into a feedneck.
maybeif you could mount a feedneck to the bottom of the marker you could get one on there. I would make a magwell as per the original design. have it use either tpx mags or tib mags. or you can invent an alternative. heck even rap4 mags would work.
if you could get a rail directly over the barrel for a sight the design would be more functional as far as sighting in a scope goes.
I would reccomend different bodys for the marker like the agd tac1. left feed, right feed, top feed, bottom feed (for mags), and "warp" left/right.
its worth considering producing this marker in 50cal if your going to sell the eficiency of it as 50cal has a distinct advantage over 68 in terms of shooting efficiency and vaulve size.
also it would be fun to have a 50/68 sized marker for working prototype purposes. (pray for tiny fingers)
09 June 2010 - 02:31 PMthe technology for paintball lenses that dont break is already here. its called 1/8" of accrylic.