Bottom or side?
- richardbridges
- Private 3
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:46 pm
- Location: GA
Wouldn't it be more effective to have the air flow in from the side than the bottom?
- Attachments
-
- blocks.jpg (21.66 KiB) Viewed 4875 times
- joannaardway
- Corporal 5
- Posts: 949
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:57 pm
- Location: SW Hertfordshire, England, UK.
It's much debated.
It would be nice to see someone actually build two otherwise identical vortex guns and prove it one way or the other.
It would be nice to see someone actually build two otherwise identical vortex guns and prove it one way or the other.
Novacastrian: How about use whatever the heck you can get your hands on?
frankrede: Well then I guess it won't matter when you decide to drink bleach because your out of kool-aid.
...I'm sorry, but that made my year.
frankrede: Well then I guess it won't matter when you decide to drink bleach because your out of kool-aid.
...I'm sorry, but that made my year.
- subterranean
- Specialist
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:39 am
- Location: columbus, ohio
"noname" should be here shortly to clear things up. Acording to him the shorter the ditance the bb has to travel will allow for maximum speed to be kept.
- richardbridges
- Private 3
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:46 pm
- Location: GA
I'm not going for easy. I just got a 1/2 inch x 2 inch x 4 foot T6 aluminum bar and a Hudson 800 psi spray gun. Both free!
- zeigs spud
- Corporal 2
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:39 pm
yea thats pretty much true, the less friction & shorter they have to travel the less energy they lose.subterranean wrote:"noname" should be here shortly to clear things up. Acording to him the shorter the ditance the bb has to travel will allow for maximum speed to be kept.
- richardbridges
- Private 3
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:46 pm
- Location: GA
What about completely eliminating the vortex so that the bbs have no surface to go around? Stick a magnet in the bottom to hold them in place in the barrel at the bottom of the feed.
- Attachments
-
- no block_thumb.gif (5.3 KiB) Viewed 4737 times
for one thing it is very hard to create a hopper that constantly feeds without jamming and also it is gravity feed so you would have to keep it up the whole time
"Those who are different change the world. Those who are the same keep it that way"
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General
- Posts: 26189
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 551 times
- Been thanked: 328 times
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
- Modderxtrordanare
- Corporal 2
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Texas
That thread you linked to is about inlet placement on a cloud, where as richardbridges is asking about a vortex.
I would think that placing the inlet perpendicular to the barrel would be more effective [theoretically] due to less surface it must travel over.
I would think that placing the inlet perpendicular to the barrel would be more effective [theoretically] due to less surface it must travel over.
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General
- Posts: 26189
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 551 times
- Been thanked: 328 times
My point is that you're feeding air into what is effectively an expansion chamber at a lower rate than it's being expelled from the barrel - this remains true irrespective of what angle you're feeding the air, so simply varying the latter variable isn't really going to have any significant effect on performance.Modderxtrordanare wrote:That thread you linked to is about inlet placement on a cloud, where as richardbridges is asking about a vortex.
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
- richardbridges
- Private 3
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 7:46 pm
- Location: GA
Thank you jackssmirkingrevenge. You cleared that up for me.