I'm looking at the chamfer of the piston sealing face of the barrel, and I can't help but think the air flowing across the edge of the pipe is going to pinch some of the flow. Basically, turbulence generated by flowing across the edge forms a boundary-layer vortex just inside the tube, choking the actual intake area down a small percentage. I assume you know about that, and the chamfer is to counter that.
There's a design used in extremely high performance cars called a velocity stack. It literally looks like the bell of a trumpet.
Wikipedia's entry on it has a very good explanation on the physics of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_stack
If you're getting down to "every last little bit", it'd be interesting to see the effect.
Performance enhancement
- Daltonultra
- Specialist 3


- Posts: 301
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:17 pm
- Location: Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
The trick is not so much as to increase the flow of the QEV, but to reduce the amount of air that needs to flow through it.ALIHISGREAT wrote:Modified 1/2" QEV?!?! what much can you do to improve it?
A 1/2" QEV has a large amount of empty space in it which goes to little use, and adds extra pilot volume. The aim therefore is to modify the QEV to act better as a pilot valve, by reducing it's internal volume without sacrificing the flow.
Basically modify it to how it should have been in the first place.
It was an idea I had considered, but eventually I decided that the current slide valve pilot for the QEV was more than sufficient, although I am going to cut the pilot volume for the QEV somewhat as well.maybe an electronic trigger would be good? a mini-solenoid to pilot the QEV?
An electronic trigger system could improve consistency, but it will also be on the side of very small gains for a fairly great cost. Also, it adds an electrical dependence for the launcher. I have ideas for electrical additions the launcher doesn't rely on, but I'd rather not have things it has to rely on.
That was exactly the plan, except I'm planning to try and do a better job of it than when I did it on HEAL.Daltonultra wrote:Basically, turbulence generated by flowing across the edge forms a boundary-layer vortex just inside the tube, choking the actual intake area down a small percentage. I assume you know about that, and the chamfer is to counter that.
Obviously, the velocity stack idea can't be directly applied, but these are my ways to try and get a similar effect.
Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
- VH_man
- Staff Sergeant 4

- Posts: 1827
- Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:00 pm
- Location: New Hampshire
- Been thanked: 1 time
Haha it did for me too.... But I saw its creator and I realized who made it, and decided not to comment.....lctchamp wrote:Your title "performance enhancement" made me think of a Viagra commercial.Back on topic, does anyone have a link to HEAL, because I don't think I have seen it before.
that and how have you NOT heard of the HEAL?
That and Rag, I finally understand why your piston inlet is cone-shaped. Interesting. I might just have to try that.
Also, Just a thought on efficiency more, Try making the Inlet to the Barrel not "ragged". Kinda like, Make the Barrel inlet a soft cone leading out to the edge of the Piston housing. This will proboably fix things up more than anything.
You're all dirty minded punks. :violent1:lctchamp wrote:Your title "performance enhancement" made me think of a Viagra commercial
It was smoother than those photos show, those were half way during construction.VH_man wrote:Also, Just a thought on efficiency more, Try making the Inlet to the Barrel not "ragged". Kinda like, Make the Barrel inlet a soft cone leading out to the edge of the Piston housing. This will proboably fix things up more than anything.
Hopefully, 3vo will improve what HEAL did even further.
Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
- VH_man
- Staff Sergeant 4

- Posts: 1827
- Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:00 pm
- Location: New Hampshire
- Been thanked: 1 time
Bah. I didnt explain that well. I mean:Ragnarok wrote:It was smoother than those photos show, those were half way during construction.VH_man wrote:Also, Just a thought on efficiency more, Try making the Inlet to the Barrel not "ragged". Kinda like, Make the Barrel inlet a soft cone leading out to the edge of the Piston housing. This will proboably fix things up more than anything.
Fill in the area from the edge of the sealing "area" of the barrel to the front of the piston housing, with some kind of cone shaped thing. This would, as I PRESUME, make it much easier for the air to enter the barrel. If I was still awake atm id make a picture.
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General

- Posts: 26219
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 582 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
Since performance is your goal, why not go for a burst disk? Your rate of fire would of course be somewhat reduced, but then again you don't exactly need it for AA defence either 
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
- ALIHISGREAT
- Staff Sergeant 3

- Posts: 1778
- Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:47 pm
- Location: UK
i think we all know burst discs aren't quite the samejackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Since performance is your goal, why not go for a burst disk? Your rate of fire would of course be somewhat reduced, but then again you don't exactly need it for AA defence either
<a href="http://www.bungie.net/stats/halo3/defau ... player=ALI H IS GREAT"><img src="http://www.bungie.net/card/halo3/ALI H IS GREAT.ashx"></a>


How do you plan to coat the interior of the barrel with Teflon? The friction coefficient will be utterly useless if you can't apply it smooth. Your best pet would be to use a larger barrel, but the inside there is a Teflon insert. Using a sharp drill bit and boring out a Teflon rod would be good, or just buy a tube. HDPE would be a good lower cost alternative, easier to machine too.
- POLAND_SPUD
- Captain

- Posts: 5402
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
don't you think that all in all it'd be cheaper to use helium instead of air or up the pressure?? what's the point in spending a lot of $ on teflon to get maybe 2% more power??Using a sharp drill bit and boring out a Teflon rod would be good, or just buy a tube. HDPE would be a good lower cost alternative, easier to machine too.
Children are the future
unless we stop them now
unless we stop them now
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General

- Posts: 26219
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 582 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
Certainly not as practical as pistons but if performance is the goal, burst disks have no equal aside from "valveless" designs.ALIHISGREAT wrote:i think we all know burst discs aren't quite the same
I thought you could buy dry lube spray, not sure if it's teflon.
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
I want performance, but within other limitations - the second stage of the project will add a semi-auto mechanism.jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Since performance is your goal, why not go for a burst disk? Your rate of fire would of course be somewhat reduced, but then again you don't exactly need it for AA defence either
I don't really want to sacrifice rate of fire for what little performance a burst disc will add (a few m/s at the outside). Although I so have ideas for how to handle semi auto burst discs, it's not a simple or cheap mechanism to build.
As for the Teflon issue, I already have a dry Teflon spray. My experience is that it holds pretty well, but I don't know exactly how it will fare in a barrel.
I'm also not looking to use helium. I could... but it would be far more expense than I want to go to.
Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General

- Posts: 26219
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 582 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
Are you sure the difference will be so little?Ragnarok wrote:what little performance a burst disc will add (a few m/s at the outside).
My performance data comparing similarly sized and pressurised piston and burst disk guns was as follows, this is for a 16 grain pellet:
piston valve - around 565 feet per second
burst disk (actually had around half the chamber volume of the piston valved launcher) - 720 feet per second
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
Pretty confident, yeah.jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Are you sure the difference will be so little?
The differences I'm modelling - not with GGDT mind you, I'm using my own modeller for this, which handles various things differently and accounts for some others I know GGDT ignores - the results provided by a burst disk aren't really worth the extra effort and cost I'd have to put up to have a burst disc.
Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
Whats the point of building one of the best pneumatic spudguns in the world (possibly the most powerful one of its size) when you know that someone who smacked a bit more money on the project would outperform you?POLAND_SPUD wrote:what's the point in spending a lot of $ on teflon to get maybe 2% more power??
And on such high speeds, 2% is alot.
Create an account or sign in to join the discussion
You need to be a member in order to post a reply
Create an account
Not a member? register to join our community
Members can start their own topics & subscribe to topics
It’s free and only takes a minute
Sign in
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post



