Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About hunterseeker5

  • Rank
    ASF Citizen
  1. I was asked to respond to this. Given Guges' absolutely stellar and informative response though, what could possibly be added to this? Coming back away from sarcasm, there are quite a few different hypotheses flying around on the subject. I've written on them in various respects, as well as addressing some of the concepts you cite, more info regarding all of these things can be found flying somewhere around this subforum: http://forums.airsoftmechanics.com/index.php?board=29.0 The first point on barrel dynamics is that, so far as we know, the BB rides on the barrel ceiling. Multiple independent experiments have demonstrated this, and despite the objection from certain "physicists," nobody to my knowledge has actually even cited a hypothetical experimental design which could discredit the existing body of evidence. That posited, there are a variety of different barrel bores which people claim do other things. The TK Twist claims to float the BB down the center with some sort of "air vortex." No experiment, that I'm aware of, has ever been applied to this barrel to prove or disprove this. Purely hypothetically, you'd expect it to be the case otherwise the barrel would be expected to produce abominable accuracy, but without a several thousand dollar instrument the testing would be destructive and the results subject to a certain level of "interpretation." (a reference to the fabled 1J TK Twist limit, which has been categorically disproven yet for some reason persists as a rumor. If you search on AM, there is a certain amount of hypothesizing regarding why this may be the case, namely volume discussions) The other common one is the Orga Magnus barrel, where the larger air space and tapered bore claim the BB again floats. Nobody has demonstrated this either, and in this case I see no real potential mechanism, but in this case it is confounded by being combined with other factors like its innate flat-hop design, and above average level of quality. Nobody has submitted one for testing, and I personally think it a bit inane to front the cash to proof someone else's product myself particularly when I can't readily come up with a satisfactory control. The barrel groove cutters have some history you may be unaware of. They were based solely off the mad idea of a user who goes by Maekii. Being a rather intelligent tech, who I respect, I built the groove cutters as an intellectual exercise for him to test his hypothesis and released them into the wild for other users intrigued by his idea. (primarily in a discussion on AM) To my knowledge, he has never (years?) later gotten around to actually testing said cutter's effect. I tested them insofar as demonstrating they were capable of functioning, for the purposes of refining the design, but beyond that allowed the project to languish as it was his concept. Incidentally, a variety of different users have come up with different bore architectures which this cutter would also be readily able to produce. (including tri-bottom groove, singular top groove, muzzle 6 groove "crown" much like those Eagle [brand?] barrels, etc) I would argue that airflow, regarding velocity loss, should be a less significant concern to you. Why? Because, unless you're working on the very ragged edge of power, it is pretty easy to simply increase your spring rate. I should note, while we're on this topic, that volume balancing is a concern and while I've attempted to address its estimation with some superficial calculations (I'm sure you're aware of the HSA calc by now) there are factors which my formulae do not account for nor are easily estimated by end-line users, ergo your barrel length and/or cylinder volume does still require a certain level of experimentation. Hopefully all that covers at least a little bit of new information, some informed speculation, and was otherwise at least pretending to be useful. I should also note, I'm rarely on ASF these days, and I likely won't see your reply here either. You might consider doing some serious digging over on AM, because most if not all of this has been addressed over there at some point in some way or another. If/when you do decide to post a thread there though, I'd recommend you post citations to each specific question, and separate them, so people can see what information you're running on, where you're coming from, and can fully address the concept you'd like to discuss. My 2c.
  2. Interesting concept, converting an IR-hop into an active concave nub. You might find a few other ways to do something like this in one of the many flat hop threads flying around here. To answer your question though: This gets into a discussion of active concave vs. passive concave. If you're using something solid and relatively incompressible, it does need to be concave shaped to make complete contact with the BB. The upside to this is its great for visualization/marketing, is easy to tune for short-travel hops, and does improve contact over hard flat nubs or the traditional cylinder, but the downside is it amplifies spin velocity inconsistencies due to bb diameter deviation, is more sensitive to hop arm angle, and puts pressure points at the edges of the bucking. Something that can behave as compressible in situ, will conform to the BB ironing out these inconsistencies and producing great performance, but the down side is that tuning it for short travel hop systems can be more of a challenge. Just to give you a nice visual example, below is what a BB looks like after having been fired through a typical R-hop M-nub setup. As you can see even concave contact is not a problem: Please note the striations are perpendicular to the direction of travel, and are an artifact of the scribing fluid removal as they are not reflected in the contact of regular BBs. Anyways though, kudos for coming up with something clever I didn't think of, and throwing in some humor while you're at it. ;)
  3. Yes, lets get very specific: Not interested huh? So your entire argument around it not being a blatant con centers around your claim to have only afterward come up with the idea to sell the R-hop you wanted to copy? Fascinating then that you put up your for sale thread initially selling things you outright called R-hops and M-nubs, a violation of my intellectual property, and now are calling them the remarkably different "Arrr-Hop" Patches" and ""Mmmm Nubs." You did, surprisingly, post the email dates as well. April 4th 2013. I wonder when your for-sale thread was made? Apr 15 2013. Wow, so taking my product name a mere 11 days after not getting the answer you wanted to deciding to do something illegal, which the mods corrected. But yes, the definition of a con is: "persuade (someone) to do or believe something, typically by use of a deception." So you tried to persuade me to tell you how to make R-hops, claiming you wouldn't attempt to sell them. Well you did attempt to sell them. Pretty clear cut. You're right, people are welcome to make up their own minds on your intentions, but your actions are pretty clear, I don't think you're fooling anyone. You see, there is a difference between posting something that was shared in a private email (like you just did to me) and sharing something which you posted publicly elsewhere. The fact that you wrecked your sports car, and shared it online and it could be found under your "Shifty" handle (appropriate name BTW) makes it non-privileged information. Am I not allowed to quote things from your sales thread because that required "sleuthing" to find? Or is it only things you've posted on other forums which really "show my character?" Or perhaps you're simply looking for a personal attack where none exists. If you'd like though, I can share with the ladies and gents what you sent to me privately. I don't typically reserve the same courtesy of privacy for someone who has out and out stolen my trademarked product names and tried to con me, but I haven't posted anything private yet. I'd also like to add that, as much as you claim to be bringing something new to the table and being a "thrifty hero" you're not. You took something which was already in the public eye and had extensive public discussion around it, added ZERO value, and marked it up for resale. You're not helping people with all your thriftyness, if you wanted to help people in that manner you'd be looking for design improvements, working on improved manuals, helping other people with tech problems on the forums, or sharing one of the many threads like this one: http://www.airsoftforum.com/board/redirect...e-material.html Anyway its all you, I'll let you have the last word with this one. Make the most of it. :) *edit* I did want to thank the people in this thread who came to support me, so thank you. :)
  4. Sour grapes? Cute. You tried to con me, it didn't work, and now we're here because you can't make convincing looking fakes. Classy bro. Need the cash after you wrecked your Dodge Viper? And actually, technically, it does. If you knew how to install an R-hop, you'd know that leg length matters in order to get a correct install, so being able to precisely control it also matters...... unless you want to buy a few bucks worth of tubing and cut off bits and sell them for 8$ a bit. Additionally, if you'd bothered to do your homework, you'd have seen that here are all sorts of alternatives people have been trying so you wouldn't have ended up: Just as a popular example: http://www.airsoftsniperforum.com/32-gener...e-material.html While they're not actually correct about a number of things, you can make serviceable hops from their suggestions and it is crowd approved. This is why the R-hop was released as open source. I could have sold them Tackleberry style, bonded in place and "top secret." Instead I spent countless hours teaching people how to do installs and selling them relatively cheap. Is Shifty spending the time to write manuals and teach people how to do the install? How about developing entirely new things, instead of copying Orga too? That money by the way, has gone towards develop of a number of new concepts. So yeah, if you want me to keep working on new ideas and developing new things, someone has to actually buy them otherwise the whole point of innovating kinda dies. By all means though, if you want to experiment or you want to do stuff super cheap, there are a TON of different things you can try which are probably lying around your house and made out of rubber. Or, as will be covered later in this thread, you can play with the G-hop or one of the commercial flat hops and see what you like. I might also add, that I could also imagine how Orga might be a bit hacked off that you took their flat-hop window concept and just copied it. That does seem to be your game though. Granted you also taken the coating off the bore which I'm sure is wonderful. Yes, so Ishioka created the G-hop, and I cite him at the top of the R-hop description on my website. While the G-hop was a great concept for the 30m challenge, it had durability issues in our >1J experiments and its life expectancy was relatively few rounds. (there is a whole thread on this over on AM) Obviously depending on your surface prep, adhesive, etc you could extend that life expectancy, but even Ishioka found it to be limited. (he developed it to shoot in the 30m challenge is my understanding) I looked at the concept, and after trying it, decided I wanted to find a way to make it function in high power guns and for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of rounds. Ishioka ended up coming up with something he called the HE G-hop, I ended up coming up with the R-hop. Visually, you can see the parallel lines of thought in the two different solutions. It was because, in part, I came up with the idea from seeing Ishioka's work, I wanted to pay it forward in the hope that someone would see what I did and develop the next advance after that. What I didn't expect were people like Shifty popping up, which has made me a bit queasy about public betas or releases of the next gen hop I've been working on, the Q-hop. Like I said before, if you're looking for a super duper deal, you can probably find some sort of rubber in your house even, or order it from wherever the guys on Airsoft Sniper Forum think is best at the moment. I have to be honest, seeing people like Shifty does burn me a little bit. I wanted other people to push the concept further, just as I took an existing concept (Ishioka's G-hop) and pushed it forward. Seeing someone just try and hop on the bandwagon, trash talk me for a quick buck claiming to be all super thrifty and whatnot, just doesn't seem right somehow. You want to do it yourself, go for it. Hell maybe you'll come up with the next clever thing.
  5. I don't offer tech services to the public anymore, in no small part because it is a lousy way to make money. There are always people who want to talk endlessly, complain about price, don't have the $$$, and if/when the gun breaks regardless of cause it is ALWAYS your (the tech's) fault. :P A four day turnaround time to get a gun from non-firing to firing for 100$ sounds like decent value to me. If you told me you wanted me to diagnose a non-firing gun, get it running right, AND you wanted to jump the line and have the gun turned around in less than a business week all for 100$, I wouldn't have even given you the time of day. I actually wrote a rather long thread on the subject of acquiring tech services. Its linked in the bottom link in my sig if you care to read it, and maybe get a bit of a better grasp regarding why things are the way they are in the airsoft teching world. But back to the actual problem at hand, I'm not actually getting frustrated by your gun. What frustrates me when trying to help people diagnose problems, is when they don't perform the tests I ask. I respond by simply leaving them to solve their problems themselves. No need to get my panties in a bunch over it. The idea I was going with when I asked if you fired the .28s last though, was that your piston head was improperly lubricated by too much excessively viscous grease. If you blew enough of it out....... Anyway my last post still has a few tests for you to try.
  6. Heat treat deviation, mislabeled, who knows. It isn't normal though, a spring shouldn't inexplicably gain 50% kinetic energy output, even with optimized compression. The spring is off.
  7. Pull the brushes and then check for conductivity across the poles. Its possible, if not likely, you have a short somewhere which you're going to have to bug out. As an aside, this is why you put a fuse in your system. :P
  8. ICS motors use a different armature and magnet architecture than our typical TM style motors. As a result they don't really behave quite like the motors you may be used to.
  9. Well mid 400s FPS with a .2 is 1.9J Mid 300s with .28s is about 1.6J You're being rather vague, but since your last diagnostic test suggested your nozzle was working, next check would be piston head. Perhaps improper lubrication is retarding o-ring seating/sealing. What did you lubricate it with? Out of curiosity, did you test the .28s last? Quick test for you. Instead of doing the ex vivo compression test fast, seal off the front of the cylinder and then very slowly press the piston head forward. How much distance does it take before the o-ring seats and seals? Your last test would be to pull the spring out, rotate the sector gear so its not engaging the piston, and work the piston forward and backward with your fingers to feel for mechanical drag. This is the least likely culprit, as it tends to be more consistent and simply low, but you never know. As just another screwball idea, pull the whole barrel group, and swap it with someone else's whose gun is running well. Its a quick 30 second test. Yes, we did most likely eliminate the barrel group (hop) as a cause, but since you're likely about to stump me I might as well throw that one out there before I throw up my hands and say you're going to have a tech look at it.
  10. For god sake man, take it down a few stops. Your depth of field is so bad its less than 8mm, hell its less than 4mm depth of field that is really sharp. The result is that it is unnecessary difficult to assess certain aspects. Let me give you an example: Is that crown really that asymmetric, or is it just a loss of depth of field? *shrug* Having handled hundreds, maybe thousands, of Prometheus steel barrels though, I would like to posit a few things: Prometheus surfaces are usually quite high polish. This is a marketing tactic, but in this case there seem to be surprisingly visible tool marks on the outside of this barrel. This does not typically match Prometheus. Prometheus barrels have rather ridged crowns. Not entirely sure why this is done, not that it has necessarily been shown to be a negative, but this crown looks like someone went in and subsequently polished it. Prometheus bores are surprisingly not-smooth, but their pattern appears more like crystals than longitudinal striations. Like this: And under a scope: And finally, Prometheus has had multiple window styles, so it is hard to be definitive here, but I must say yours doesn't really quite match any of them, other than simply being square: So while it is difficult to say anything with 100% confidence, I would say with reasonable certainty that barrel does not appear genuine. It is worth noting that a surprising number of fakes have made it into circulation as of late, some sold by honest morons who didn't do their due diligence checking their supply chain, others with more sinister intent. Bottom line? I wouldn't pay a premium for a used barrel regardless, as it is perfectly easy for someone to have scratched it up or otherwise ruined it, after all is a shitted up Prometheus really worth any more than any other cheap barrel of equally low performance? Decent steel barrels are getting cheaper and cheaper these days, Madbull's latest efforts not withstanding, so it might be alright at least. I'd value it at between 8 and 15$ assuming it looks quite straight, has no bore deformities, and shoots well.
  11. Yeah, I'm with Phil, I'd have started looking for gremlins rather than throwing money on the fire to try and extinguish it. As for that piston weight though..... yes and no. No you don't technically NEED it, except for the fact that the end of your spring requires it so seat correctly so you'd either need to mod your spring or get a different one. I'd start by just looking at velocity consistency AS STOCK. If your FPS is all over the board, then it is likely airseal. (although could be mechanical) If it is consistent, then it is likely just a weak spring. Given that springs are just a few bucks, buying a nice spring that you can count on its rating, usually is a cheap way to Dx your system if you feel its under-power.
  12. If you can CONSISTENTLY pass the coke-can test, now after tweaking your gun a bit, try your chrono again. If you change things in between experiments, you'll never figure out what is going on because you don't have the necessary consistency in your experimental design. Generally speaking though, it is unusual for a chrono to be off like that. If there is an accuracy issue, your readings will usually be all high or all low. If there is a precision issue, your readings will just be scattered all over the board. A chrono that randomly spikes a high velocity, while not impossible certainly, would be unusual. To diagnose it then, you'd need to design a controlled experiment. Given that I'm guessing you don't have two chronos on hand, why not shoot through your chrono into the bottom of a coke can? That way you get to see what the chrono thinks your gun did, and what the coke can thinks your gun did, on the same bb. Sexy looking gun BTW, although not as sexy as you, you animal. :P
  13. The middle link in my signature should contain the basic mods that'll really get you going on the subject. There is more advanced stuff, after you've finished the basics, in the bottom link..... but if you do everything in the middle link correctly, your gun will already be running better than 80% of the other guns out there probably.
  14. Tracers, if you can get them in the mass and surface finish of the rounds you'll end up shooting, are an option. Most people just shoot on paper with their sights though as that is more relevant. It is worth mentioning that, in most hop systems, you want your last adjustment to be turning the hop on. You turn it off, then slowly creep it up incrementally until you achieve optimal hop. If you go past, you start over again. Why? Because there is slop in all these adjusters, and if your last adjustment was "on" you've taken up that slop. If you've not though, your hop can/will creep backward over time until it is.
  15. At the risk of asking a dumb question: If you don't play airsoft, why do you own a gun? Wouldn't it be a bit vestigial if it were never to be used in anger? *shrug* Don't know what to tell you mate. Sounds most likely to me that they're either opposing turns, or the supp. is smaller than the gun. For what its worth though, the latter sounds unlikely as you're correct the threads inside the supp should measure 13mm ID since you're measuring from the tops.
  • Create New...