Sie sind auf Seite 1von 25

I was inspired quite some time ago to attempt this, by someone who said it couldn't

be done using basic math. After reviewing this article written by Domingo Tavella
(you can google it if you'd like, its very well written) I felt compelled to give it a shot.
My interpretation of whats happening in a pcp rifle is as follows and measures up with
already established data in terms of basic math formulas to determine lift + dwell. eg:
lift = hammer kinetic energy / closing force and dwell = 2x hammer momentum /
closing force. That is with consideration of energy loss after lifting the valve off the
seat which is pressure on the seat area * compression distance of poppet / 2. Closing
force being (primarily) the cross sectional area of your poppet stem times the
average pressure of the transfer plenum/port + spring.

Using my calculations and assuming the valve only remains open until the volumes
are equal (volume released = volume between seat and pellet + barrel volume)
allows me to calculate roughly how many inches the pellet travels until the valve
closes by subtracting the volume between seat to pellet base prior to it moving from
the volume released and taking the remaining volume and calculating that into barrel
volume to determine barrel distance.. and calculating the speed of the valve stem
after being hit by the hammer and using its velocity allows me to estimate how
quickly the valve opens, as well as calculating how quickly it closes. There is quite a
bit more depth but that is the basics of where I began.
From there I applied the basic law of pressure/volume p2=(p1+v1)/v2 to determine
the pressure drop along the barrel and use the pressure + potential system losses to
determine the velocity.

The following data is only ESTIMATED, but gives a GREAT representation of whats
happening inside a PCP, especially at low power. I will likely do more data sets with
other tunes in the future! This was done over the last 4 days! I've learned a lot and
have way too much more to learn. But these figures represented here are VERY
accurate.
(Click to enlarge)
-Matt

 This topic was modified 6 months ago by ackuric.

October 1, 2018 at 10:08 pmLINK

AirNGasman
Member
I'm pretty sure that what happens is when the trigger is pulled it releases the hammer
or striker being held under spring tension that flies forward and knocks a valve open,
releasing a blast of air from a pressurized chamber that rushes into the barrel
propelling a projectile down and out the barrel and down-range. But since I can't see
through metal, I'm really just speculating!
On second thought, I'll take your word for it.
October 1, 2018 at 10:51 pmLINK

ackuric
Member
Its interesting to note certain key data, such as.

Valve open time, 2 MS! (estimated 2 different ways)

Air released 191 MG! (calculated based on air usage)
Equivalent port reduction fps = within 1% of actual calculated output AND real life
output. (port reduction equivalence based on the lifts flow and a restricted port that
would match it)
Valve closes (on this very detuned data set) by the time the pellets traveled only .37
inches down the barrel!
Hammer lock time is 8x the valves lock time, and nearly 4x the pellets lock time. Total
lock time on this set is only 11 ms from trigger pull to pellet exit, where as the valve is
opening in 1/10th that speed!

 This reply was modified 6 months ago by ackuric.

October 2, 2018 at 12:13 amLINK

george_schmermund
Member
I've been doing some modifications and measurements on a couple of Mrodair CP-2
airguns and have set up a test bench for experiments that may be of interest to
anyone interested in methods for testing internal and external ballistics. Here is a link
to the information: https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=137566.0
October 2, 2018 at 4:38 pmLINK

fe7565
Member
This is really interesting albeit the calculations are over my head. So the concept is
that you are determining (estimating) fps velocity based on the air used and your
particular airgun's internal physical dimensions/operation + physics laws applied? If I
understand it correctly, the calculated velocity (655 fps) in your case came in very
close to the actual measured (chrono used?) average velocity of 651.6 fps? This
can be a huge thing, because could be applied to any airgun and calculate velocity
for each pellet fairly accurately without any external devices.
I am assuming that once a particular airgun is measured for all the internal ballistic
parameters, you only have to do it once. So, if the airgun is not touched (lubricated,
reg pressure the same, hammer spring the same, etc) these internal
parameter numbers are constant and the only variables are the (1) starting
pressure (2) temperature/humidity (3) pellet weight (4) pellet head size=> friction
BUT…. my biggest question: how did you measure your internal volumes, dwell,
etc??? The tolerances are extremely small and the measurement itself probably
takes days? How would I go about measuring my own airgun and assured that the
numbers would be accurate?
Some other questions: what factor does pellet friction play in the accuracy? Should
pellets be sized? Or overall the pellet-friction from pellet from pellet because of
varying head size, etc is not a significant factor?.
If I understand the utility of this calculation correctly, this could be very useful for
knowing velocities without a chrono..

 This reply was modified 6 months ago by fe7565.

October 5, 2018 at 3:21 amLINK

ackuric
Member
Updated the charts look, as well as corrected a calculation or two which didn't
change valve performance.

fe767,
Your assumption is correct in that the variables of every day life such as humidity,
temp change, pressure change, , pellet variation + friction changes + hammer speed
variations will all create what we know as an extreme spread. …the calculations I
made assumes an average of all and gives you a number close to what it thinks your
average output will be based 100% upon your entered air usage (volume + pressure)
per shot.
As I stated in the original post I cross verified my calculations for dwell + lift (internal
mechanics) of the valve with known good starting points. Also if you can cross verify
more times than one with multiple calculations then generally you're onto something
or at least 'close enough'. As I said this is just a Data Model not a 100%
representation.

You can a) assume air travels faster at your operating pressure than your average
pellet shot. Which then means b) (if air mass accelerates and tops out much faster
than pellet can move) pellets position relative to its closure = (barrel volume per
inch – volume from valve seat to pellet base) * volume used. Calculate the time it
takes air to reach the back of your pellet and then the time it takes to carry the pellet
to the closure and you have dwell time. I may very well be wrong in my assumption
but if the pellet can move faster then the air pushing it then it will have lost all
potential energy and would just cruise along at the same speed much like it does
generally later in the barrel or for example if you ran an extremely long barrel there is
a point when pellet speed tends to overcome the average speed of the air left…all
just IMO

-Matt

 This reply was modified 6 months ago by ackuric.

October 5, 2018 at 3:44 amLINK
ackuric
Member
The lift / peak / close times are all calculated and the time it ROUGHLY takes the
poppet to travel to the calculated lift and back, those aren't just divided among each
other…
If the poppet is opening at 30 fps and has to accelerate (first accel = fast from
collision/jerk) and then decelerate, then reverse its direction back towards the seat at
again roughly 30 fps terminal speed, then its only accelerating back towards the seat
and speeding up all the way until fully closed without any deceleration. I used the
above speeds as examples but the speeds I use are calculated assuming the
collision is elastic, and basing that on the hammer speed…which is again part of my
calculation based on hammer weight + spring. That speed isn't assumed it uses
Hookes Law. So if the hammer at 46 gr is held back by a 6.5 lb/in spring @ X
distance you get Y velocity. If hammer hits a valve stem weighing 1.5 gr elastically
you get Z velocity. Z velocity (velocity to lift – account for acceleration and
deceleration phases) / distance = time. And that is an example of some of the math I
used to cross verify other calculations such as dwell, if the speeds dont match up to
get the poppet up to the calculated lift + back to the seat then somethings wrong! In
my case I got it right or got lucky!

 This reply was modified 6 months ago by ackuric.

October 5, 2018 at 5:55 pmLINK

ackuric
Member
This is part of the hammer velocity equation I used. Here I calculate
X = SpringRate(lb/in)*(Preload+Cocking distance) – DownForce from gravity
X is the force your spring imparts onto the hammer once the trigger is pulled, notice
the DF from gravity? Well if you launch a ball/hammer on a spring straight in the air
versus down into the ground, which one do you think will end up faster over the same
distance? Which one do you think will go further? Of course our space is finite and
neither up nor down so that number has to be estimated based on the direction of
motion our hammer goes, then if you wanna go crazy you need a drag coefficient of
your hammer, its center of mass, and lots of other data to really crunch down exactly
whats happening…at some point you'd end up calculating down to the
atomic/molecular level which is WAY beyond me!

-Matt

 This reply was modified 6 months ago by ackuric.

October 5, 2018 at 8:02 pmLINK
ackuric
Member
Think of this for a second.

Clap…do it, Clap…

The air released from the valve reaches your pellet located in the breech faster than
the sound of your clap reached your ears….in fact it takes longer for the signal to
reach your brain than it does for the air to reach the pellet! Let alone the two
combined!

 This reply was modified 6 months ago by ackuric.

October 5, 2018 at 8:18 pmLINK

fe7565
Member
Thanks for the details, Matt. I understand some parts of the project but some I would
need to visualize with the airgun apart. I am actually waiting for a Huma reg and an
upgraded valve seat for my FX Impact. Once those come in and I find time, I will
rebuild the Impact and replace all the o-ring, etc. While I have everything apart at
least I will get a better idea of the inner working of the airgun. I think the
measurements are so precise and difficult to accomplish with layman tools…that it
may be beyond my scope.
An interesting thought about the Daystate Air Wolf…it has the adjustable power curve
setting that varies the valve timing. Theoretically, once you set that curve for a
particular pellet and measure the velocity, from that point on you should be able to
set your velocity for that peller without needing any measurements. Do it for 4-5
pellet types and no need to use a chrono.

October 5, 2018 at 11:53 pmLINK

ackuric
Member
Here is another chart for fun, I only added to the air use scale. so 7% more air use
would mean I used 7% of 2100~ which = 147~ more psi used over same shot count
(basically doubling the air used). I did this to see how it would scale and what do ya
know, no other changes made it puts me at my max. Now believe it or not thats
incidentally the neighborhood of my valves max shooting the 19.91 gr…1020-1040~
Notice the FPE Loss line on this graph compared to the last. Most that FPE lost is
ADIABATIC and irretrievable! LOL. Also the Estimated MAX High shot count dropped
due to avg pressure at the seat. dropping which is used in that calc…so less
pressure at seat + less pressure in barrel = a few less fps
This graph is just a representation and not a data model nor are the scale settings
finished. Just an example!
I blacked out quite a few things just because those measurements aren't currently set
up to scale with this air use factor.

 This reply was modified 6 months ago by ackuric.

October 6, 2018 at 1:31 amLINK

milacik
Spectator
Left the forum

 This reply was modified 5 months ago by milacik.

October 6, 2018 at 2:33 amLINK

ackuric
Member
The above chart is of a regulated rifle, with the Plenum volume being 53 cc and the
main res being 190 cc.

You can see in the very upper set of data I have a calculation that recommends a
setpoint + volume within 5% for regulator at that fpe level that would work, which
allows maximum head room space for HPA air + volume and shot count between fill
pressure and set point.
It states I could reduce the plenum set point to 1250~ PSI with just a 7 CC plenum
adding back 46 CC's of HPA and adding 780 more psi of space between fill and set
point pressure on this very low 18.7 FPE tune.
My 2000 psi set point has 106 lbs + spring force holding it shut
a 1250 psi setpoint would have only 66 lbs. Which also makes the valve much easier
to open reducing the cocking force.

Of course I move my tune between 18-55 fpe so I won't be doing the above.

-Matt

 This reply was modified 6 months ago by ackuric.

October 6, 2018 at 3:39 amLINK

ackuric
Member
Here is a 25 FPE tune on the same 19.91 gr pellet…as you see its all set to scale
and calculates more properly with more air usage for less fpe compared to the 40+
chart, which was just an example and NOT set to scale on all things, where as this
one is according to my actual entered data. FPE / CI drops from 1.91 @ 18 fpe to
1.7 ~ @ 25 fpe. Considering this is a very light pellet you can't expect high efficiency
numbers unless its at a very low power output.
The recommended set point + cc volume for regulator on this tune is 1550 psi and
11cc +/- 5%
Also note the BC /Pellet Drop calculator is sync'd with my tune changes as the pellet
drop went from around 12 inches on the 18 fpe tune down to 9~ at 25 fpe

Also the Thermal Efficiency and System Efficiency were swapped accordingly from
last chart as I had them backwards. As you can see here there is 73%~ thermal
efficiency which means 27% (roughly) of the potential energy was lost adiabatically.
IMO.
The system efficiency would measure approximate loses from energy out of the
muzzle, energy lost in the transfer port. If I had no transfer channel from seat to pellet
and a longer barrel this number could increase to 100%. again IMO. I wasn't too
scientific about obtaining this number so thats why its very much an approximation.

 This reply was modified 5 months ago by ackuric.

January 1, 2019 at 8:22 pmLINK

ackuric
Member
Here is where my spreadsheet currently is, still in development but I have only added
features, haven't needed to tweak the arithmetic / calcs yet…I did however correct a
few minor calcs that did not directly effect FPS/FPE or internal ballistic
predictions…(For instance my 'ports max' Flow rate calcs were off by a measure of 6
due to a miscalculation. )Nonetheless here it is.
All data entered in was for my 56 FPE tune, from hammer weight/spring to air use
and avg fps ect..This is what the spreadsheet calculated based on my inputs…
Quite fascinating…scaling from 18.5 to 56 fpe very well…this spreadsheet is still
under development but has amazed me thus far with its progress and predictions.
Some of which aren't predictions but just basic arithmetic.
-Matt

 This reply was modified 3 months ago by ackuric.

January 1, 2019 at 8:43 pmLINK

ackuric
Member
Here is an example showing calculations that are empirical and ones that are
complex or logical/predicted.
Yellow = Simple / empirical calculations
Orange = Complex (may be inaccurate yet to be 100% verified)
Blue = Predicted/Logical calculations (theoretical)
Here are the 'inputs' used to calculate all the above data..
Blue = For internal ballistics / efficiency / air usage ect (avg fps shot purely used for
Efficiency not internal ballistic calcs directly)
Red = hammer energy data / valve lift + dwell predictions / estimated required
hammer weight / spring ect..
The blacked out areas are features not implemented and top secret! Lol
 This reply was modified 3 months ago by ackuric.
January 1, 2019 at 10:24 pmLINK

nomojo65
Member
Ackuric, excellent work!, most of the math is beyond me…but understand most of the
mechanics of the formula’s etc. I love full mechanical air guns but also believe
electro-mechanical devices can be superior if quality components are used?,( I know
everyone is thinking Daystate right now! ) there headed in right direction but QC of
components not there yet compared to full mechanical systems like
Thomas/RAW IMO. Also flow characteristics/pathways through valve & transfer port
play a roll in efficiency eg. flow 90deg into barrel or straight inline with direction of
pellet travel?, also I always liked the design & simplicity of Mac1 air rifles (which IMO
is what the Thomas is patterned after!) just keep in mind (as I’m sure you can tell…)
I’m no engineer, but have a decent Idea of what’s going on inside these wonderful
devices!
January 1, 2019 at 10:43 pmLINK

ackuric
Member
@nomojo65 I agree with a lot of what you said. The 180 degree turn most
conventional valve setups use (minus air force) certainly effect
performance/efficiency as well as distance from valve seat to pellet base and the
many other variables I calculate such as pressure drop due to plenum size, valve
open duration, ect. Electronic components can certainly produce very consistent
results provided the board controlling them is programmed well, but in terms of
efficiency or power I am afraid (IMO) they can only replicate a non electronically
controlled valve. The main benefit to electronic valves is controlling valve dwell as the
pressure drops allowing a much greater range of usable pressure opposed to
conventional methods. Mac 1 is definitely a genius when it comes to air guns!
January 2, 2019 at 2:30 pmLINK

ackuric
Member
Partial list of features so far.

***3 Different FPE/FPS prediction algorithms***

 -Predict FPE/FPS based on pellet weight, air usage, and
environmental factors + rifle specs (barrel, caliber, pressure,
plenum, tp waste) (1% accuracy or better)
 -Predict FPE/FPS based on hammer energy (lift and dwell
modeled based on pressure holding valve closed + hammer
energy, FPS/FPE predicted based on ports equivalent lift &
caliber/port/pressure/barrel length(3~% accuracy or better)
 -Predict valves HIGH FPE/FPS based on tried and true
formula (same as above but no port reduction due to lift,
accuracy 3~% or better)

***Analysis***
 -Internal ballistics. Barrel pressure gradient, FPS, FPE, FPE
Lost/left behind, FPE Potentially Recoverable (from less
pressure drop while valve open + barrel length)
 -Provide detailed analysis for hammer / spring / plenum /
valve design / air flow / air usage / shots on/off reg / residual
muzzle pressure / and much more
 -Recommended spring/hammer combo range, as well as
recommended plenum volume and regulated set point based
on your desired power / caliber / barrel ect
 -Lock times (From Hammer, to Valve, to Pellet)
 -Shot string analyzer (not shown)
 -3 Efficiency calculations (System, Thermal, Volumetric)
 -Warning messages (For poor valve design(s), poor poppet
material strength/sealing margin, high pressure drops during
shot, poor hammer/spring combos)
 -Compare gains going from Air to Helium or a mix of the two

 -Save/Store up to 5 Rifles and or tunes
 -Ballistic coefficient calculator (currently GA only)
 -Change Barrel Length/Bore Size / Plenum Size / Air Density /
Air Use / Pellet Weight / Port Size / Pellet Break Force / TP
Waste / Friction while reviewing data
 -Max potential shot count (based on current efficiency and
max usable pressure range)

***Soon*** features I want to implement or that are partially working

 -Sequential Hammer Strike Detection (warning msg)
 -Valve Over Dwell Detection (warning msg)
 -Hammer weight & spring rate profiles (spreadsheet will
calculate alternate combos that will equal the same hammer
energy allowing one to easily make large shifts in weight/rating
while maintaining energy levels, no guess work!)

I am always open to new ideas/suggestions to add. This spreadsheet is still in its

infancy and I hope to continue growing it to help people understand whats going on
internally inside our PCP's.
Heres just a small peak into some back end calculations going on to make it all work..

 This reply was modified 3 months ago by ackuric.

January 2, 2019 at 11:28 pmLINK

Deleted Account
Ackuric this is all absolutely fascinating! If I ever win the lotto you and I are going into
mind to work on creating an air rifle that is as close to 100% percent efficiency as
humanly possible to achieve. And thank you for stopping once in awhile to put your
thoughts into more simplistic terms or for using a simple analogy to describe things
so that I can grasp the concepts you are presenting. One of Albert Einsteins greatest
accomplishments in physics was that he could explain even the most complicated
concepts in simple terms that any layman could understand. He thought that even a
brick layer or house painter would be interested in his theory's… and he was right! I
thank you for taking the time and effort to type up such beautiful presentations. Keep
up the good work!
All the best, Chuck

Appreciate the kind words Chuck. What appears simple on the surface can get very
complex the more you dig into it.

some. Here is a simple comparison of a hammer preload adjustment side by side,
highlighted are all the calculations taking that into effect.
Still have LOTS of work cut out for me on this spreadsheet in the future and its not on
my top list of things to do (as one can tell I took a few weeks hiatus). Some of the
very technical nitty gritty work can be very dreadful and stays on the back burner
longer than it should. I am sure others can relate. The spreadsheet has taken a life of
its own though.
-Matt

 This reply was modified 3 months ago by ackuric.

January 3, 2019 at 12:36 amLINK

ackuric
Member
Let me make it clear that the FPE Lost in the graph represents a loss that cannot be
obtained (theoretically at least), where as the FPE Potential is the max combined
FPE if one were to have less pressure drop (larger plenum) and more barrel length, it
is not in addition to the already obtained FPE. Just to be clear. So with my current
configuration, with a longer barrel and a much bigger plenum, I would see 74~ FPE
on this same amount of air used, opposed to the current 56.55. That "in theory' would
be with a 27" barrel and 100~ CC's of plenum.
And to cross verify I ran the calculation with another formula, only changing my barrel
length from 19.5" to 27.5" I get the following

-Matt

 This reply was modified 3 months ago by ackuric.

January 3, 2019 at 1:15 amLINK

Deleted Account
Sweet! Many of the factors involved in airgun tuning were explained to me by a kind
gentleman in New Zealand that I believe is a mentor to Brian at Edgun West also. He
gave me to understand that one of his main goals in tuning is to achieve the velocity
being sought after with the lowest regulator pressure possible. And that the larger the
plenum size the better up to the point of diminishing returns. I believe this is why
Brian is able to get 60+ fpe out of an R5M using just a reg pressure of 120-125 bar if
I remember correctly.
January 3, 2019 at 1:30 amLINK

ackuric
Member
You are absolutely correct. The greater the pressure drop across the valve seat and
behind the pellet during valve opening the higher you need to set your regulator
pressure to compensate for the pressure drop.
Having lower pressure drop also helps reduce sequential hammer strikes re-opening
or keeping the valve open longer than desired (after Elvis has left the building). If
your pressure drop is too high (20-30%) that leaves upwards of 20-30% less force
holding the valve shut until the regulator refills, which is designed to happen fairly
slowly, the hammer can bounce back with its reduced energy and strike the valve
stem upwards of 3-4 times and if there isn't enough force to resist whatever energy
remains in the hammer, extra sips of air go bye bye.

My favorite approach to reducing/eliminating hammer bounce is a large plenum with

low pressure drop, combined with a free flight gap (.04"~ / 1mm) for the hammer (has
to travel that distance twice between bounces = more time for reg to refill and valve
to close properly) works best.

-Matt

January 5, 2019 at 2:07 pmLINK

ackuric
Member
Comparison of 4 current tunes, 20, 22 fpe, 41 fpe, 56 fpe. Shows the progression of
more inherent losses both systematically and thermally as you push more air down
the barrel. Interesting that the 25.4 gr is calculated at a faster lock time than the
33.95, even with less terminal velocity…due to its weight and increased acceleration /
avg velocity. You can note the progression of residual muzzle pressure which of
course results in more sound report. The mass of air on the 20 fpe shots were just
250~ grams where as the 56 fpe shot was just shy of 800..Each tune has its 'ideal set
point / plenum size' calculated for maximum shot count @ that power.
The trend with % of energy obtained from the air mass ejected is really similar across
the scales, essentially boiling down to only 30%~ of the available K.E making it to the
pellet, which can translate to a lot of air use with a lot of energy. 10 fpe with 20 fpe
loss isn't shabby, but 100 fpe with 200 fpe loss seems like a lot, and 1000 with 2000
fpe losss even more so…the thermal efficiency of an airgun is inherently poor, even
when shot at very low/reduced power levels.

P.S. FWIW My spreadsheet currently is using 0 Correction factors or 'fudge

factors'…or mixing of adiabatic / isothermal ect…its just straight forward calculations
taking into account any possible losses along the way with adiabatic conditions.

 This reply was modified 2 months ago by ackuric.

January 5, 2019 at 6:56 pmLINK

Deleted Account
"Adiabatic free expansion of a gas
For an adiabatic free expansion of an ideal gas, the gas is contained in an insulated
container and then allowed to expand in a vacuum. Because there is no external
pressure for the gas to expand against, the work done by or on the system is zero.
Since this process does not involve any heat transfer or work, the first law of
thermodynamics then implies that the net internal energy change of the system is
zero. For an ideal gas, the temperature remains constant because the internal energy
only depends on temperature in that case. Since at constant temperature, the
entropy is proportional to the volume, the entropy increases in this case, therefore
this process is irreversible."
"En·tro·py
1. 1.PHYSICS
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a
system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work,
often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in
the system.
… which all leads me to say that I am really flabbergasted at the proportion of the
energy lost compared to the energy converted to the work of getting the pellet down
the barrel. Using a burst of compressed air to propel an object is a terribly inefficient
means of doing so. Its hard to believe that only 30% of the energy is being used to
accomplish any work while 70% of the energy is lost. So then it should be the goal of
some enterprising physicist and some mechanical engineer to come up with a more
efficient system that turns that energy transfer equation upside down so that 70% of
the energy is being used for work with only a 30% loss.
Just sayin…
Chuck
January 5, 2019 at 7:20 pmLINK

ackuric
Member
While I may be able to calculate and articulate the losses inherent in pcp's, far more
brilliant minded people than myself have pondered that same thought. I think the
losses are what they are, entropy and just what we must accept, although I don't
oppose out of the box thinking…my best thought to obtain more power out of a pcp is
a secondary transfer port half way down the barrel that is timed, ideally by something
detecting projectile movement that provides a perfectly sequenced secondary burst
of air..as complex as the design sounds it would provide maximum energy output in a
given barrel length/distance…and would be loud as heck….imo.

 This reply was modified 2 months ago by ackuric.

January 5, 2019 at 10:27 pmLINK

Deleted Account

I am thrilled and fascinated and amused all at the same time at the thought of a
secondary transfer port at some point further down the barrel! That thought is a
stroke of genius!
Now let me add a couple thoughts to that one. I am sure you are well acquainted with
the Venturi effect where air or fluids speed up as they pass through a constriction and
the subsequent drop in pressure. So could the Venturi effect be used somehow to
increase the pellets' velocity while also using the accompanying drop in pressure to
our benefit. What if just beyond the second transfer port there is a constricted or
choked portion of the barrel that acts as a Venturi causing the gases to speed up so
as to increase the velocity of the projectile with no cost in mechanical energy? You
know that in many respects compressed air acts more like a liquid than a gas… so
can that attribute be used advantageously in a Venturi as the compressed air is in the
process of becoming uncompressed?
"In fluid dynamics, an incompressible fluid's velocity must increase as it passes
through a constriction in accord with the principle of mass continuity, while its static
pressure must decrease in accord with the principle of conservation of mechanical
energy. Thus any gain in kinetic energy a fluid may accrue due to its increased
velocity through a constriction is balanced by a drop in pressure."
I guess my question is can we somehow use low pressure compressed air through a
Venturi or choked barrel to increase our pellets' velocity with no cost in mechanical
energy? And would this allow us to use a very low regulator setting resulting in the
velocity we seek and yet rewarding us with a much higher shot count?
Just wondering…Chuck
January 6, 2019 at 1:42 amLINK

ackuric
Member
I think the Venturi effect concept is possible, but ideally employed in the valve by
going over bore porting up to the base of pellet. In theory the gases would hit the
choke @ the barrel and speed up right at the base of the pellet, provided you aren't
looking for increased thermal or volumetric efficiency but rather increased system
efficiency. I am not sure at which point the wasted volume would be more
detrimental than than the benefit from the increased airways to create such an effect,
but I don't doubt going over bore size porting would help, however I don't think
enough testing has been done to know how much, as even just going bore size itself
can be a doozy and over bore sized would be quite a task.

I think the dual transfer port idea is novel but would ideally be done electronically and
with nano second precision. Would be a herculean task.

January 19, 2019 at 7:59 pmLINK

ackuric
Member
So I took my Internal ballistic measurements a step further, and now I measure
internally @ the valve with certain figures…this was to develop and perfect, a tunable
balanced valve, which was a success. Lots of hours have gone into this, and many
calculations are approximations but as comparable as one can get to reality.

I am not displaying balanced valve data here, but that part of the sheet has been
tested, and confirmed working. I can calculate valve closure down to 100~
microseconds, which helps make a bell curve possible for balanced valves that open
really easy, and then quickly return to conventional. The sheet reveals enough to a
deep thinker that they can grasp exactly how I accomplished this task and replicate it.

The above is a development with how PCP valves tick, not many knew before, and
many still don't…and others refuse to accept my formulations, and thats fine. As I
said these are approximations and as close as I've seen anyone get. The Balanced
Valve's mystery is absolutely no more! There will be plenty of valves that use my
knowledge pertaining to the internals of a pcp valve coming out, you can bet your
money on it..many valves coming out in the next year + will be applying my findings
into their valve tech…good times ahead!