SpudFiles

When the reservoir has the volume to keep the barrel behind the projectile at maximum pressure, the projectile will travel faster, but as the projectile leaves the barrel, a lot of gas will be wasted.

Ah, but imagine this is an auto, if you make the valve more efficient, it will give you lower power but much more shots, so the total ft/lbs hitting the target will be higher <--- more POWER!

Nope...Just like an epoxy-made-Snapvalve---> you've got it all wrong ( ouch!! )

Why three mags if all that power could be put behind 1??

(just teasing )

It will actually give more than three mags, but the power will start to drop off and it will be impossible to shoot accurately. Besides, there won't be many things I'll be shooting that will need more than 36 shots at 30 ft/lbs

You could even look at cars for example, the new ones are a lot more efficient than older ones, but they have a lot less power than older cars.

potatoflinger wrote:You could even look at cars for example, the new ones are a lot more efficient than older ones, but they have a lot less power than older cars.

Imagine you had an old car and a new car stretching a giant slingshot, for a given amount of petrol, the new car would give you a better shot.

Look at it this way:

For spudguns, imagine a pneumatic with a 5 foot long 1 inch barrel and a 4 inch chamber of similar length - powerful, and very inefficient.

If I had to lengthen the barrel of this imaginary launcher by another 5 feet, I would get a much more efficient launcher, and a much more powerful one.

Catch my drift?

Yes..You are right....



sigh...





not...

There is no end to these enhancements..what if you enlared the chamber again?? It would be more wasteful, but have more power!!


The chicken and egg discussion is easier to end that this one!!

the size and pressure of the chamber dictates what power you're putting into it, so personally I count efficiency for these values being fixed.

In case you want to know wich was first:


The egg...

As long as it's not a DWV egg

having a nice little instant messaging chat the forum?

Well, I guess you are right, to some extent. A launcher that has a huge chamber and a small barrel will have more power than a launcher with the same size barrel but an "efficiently sized" chamber, but the efficient gun will have more power for it's size.

Just depends on how you use the term "efficient".

I like the car analogy that potatoflinger used.

Cars are more efficient now, meaning they use less gass and go farther. But older cars are "gas guzzlers" meaning that they used more gas, but are more powerful in using that xtra gas that is not needed.

The same can apply for a spudgun.

The sounds that the fx produces are just too cool! Thanks for rubbing in the fact that you can unleash 300lb of energy in what, 5 seconds Lovely rifle Jack, have fun!

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Ah, but imagine this is an auto, if you make the valve more efficient, it will give you lower power but much more shots, so the total ft/lbs hitting the target will be higher <--- more POWER!

Not exactly. If I had to face a nasty type and had for a choice of weapon - a vortex strafer that fires a hundred 1 ft-lb shots a second or a .32 ACP pistol that could fire one 100 ft-lb shot a second, I'd choose the pistol.

As for cars, launchers and guns - here we have Mr Jeremy Clarkson being totally over the top again:
[youtube][/youtube]

Anyway, wonderful piece of kit there JSR. I'd like one of those if I could - but I'll be building something slightly different instead... again, you'll have to wait to find out.

potatoflinger wrote:A launcher that has a huge chamber and a small barrel will have more power than a launcher with the same size barrel but an "efficiently sized" chamber, but the efficient gun will have more power for it's size.

That's pretty much what I meant, for a given amount of air you're putting in, there is a given amount of power you can obtain - inefficency means you're not achieving the full power potential

The sounds that the fx produces are just too cool! Thanks for rubbing in the fact that you can unleash 300lb of energy in what, 5 seconds

It actually sounds quite different in real life, I don't know how it came out sounding like that. Ah well, my cellphone camera is now the only one that I have that can record sound too, better than nothing. Actually I can empty the magazine in much less than 5 seconds, as fast as you can pull the trigger really, and with a bit of tinkering (but for legal reasons and becuase I don't have a room full of SCUBA bottles, I'm staying semi with this).

If I had to face a nasty type and had for a choice of weapon - a vortex strafer that fires a hundred 1 ft-lb shots a second or a .32 ACP pistol that could fire one 100 ft-lb shot a second, I'd choose the pistol.

Fair enough, the 0.32 would penetrate deeper and indeed a single shot to the head could be lethal. Still, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the strafer though - if you could keep up the rate of fire, it could chew someone up very quickly, especially if aimed at the face - I wouldn't continue attacking someone while being pelted by 100 BBs per second. Besides, the strafer also has a much, much higher hit probability, it's easier to "hose someone down" with BBs as opposed to single shots at one per second.

A friend of mine at the club also bought a Monsoon, he wants to try it out for skeet

Pull!