would a superchargedd ssp be inherently less efficient than a supercharged msp?

would a superchargedd ssp be inherently less efficient than a supercharged msp?

Joined: April 28th, 2010, 12:23 am

May 31st, 2012, 1:45 pm #1

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 28th, 2002, 6:26 pm

May 31st, 2012, 3:05 pm #2

Existence of gadgets like this suggest not.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car

Steve
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2002, 1:34 pm

May 31st, 2012, 4:41 pm #3

limit, even if you use an external source to charge them. The only advantage to using an external charging source on a pumper, is if the pumper is an acp, then the external source can be used to fill the reservoir and the gun's pump used to keep it topped off.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 23rd, 2012, 11:10 pm

May 31st, 2012, 4:55 pm #4

Depends how you define efficiency.
I define it as the least amount of work for ME !
To that end, a battery powered two stage compressor is most efficient.

Having said that, the primary difference(s) between MSP and SSP, supercharged or not, remain.

The whole supercharged idea was aimed at reducing pumping effort, yet still obtaining higher discharge pressures with a reasonable number of human pump strokes, and I think it's valid.
The "250 PSI tire pump" compressors, the compressor itself, not the plastic package, feeding into a hand pump isn't all that impractical in the butt of a rifle, and powered by several D batteries.
In any case, it's a transmission/conversion system, and every transmission/conversion system has losses.

Having said all that, I don't think either the MSP or SSP would be inherently more, or less, efficient than the other.
Both would require less human effort, and both would require some external power source of some kind.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 28th, 2010, 12:23 am

May 31st, 2012, 5:48 pm #5

Existence of gadgets like this suggest not.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_car

Steve
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 28th, 2010, 12:23 am

May 31st, 2012, 5:53 pm #6

Depends how you define efficiency.
I define it as the least amount of work for ME !
To that end, a battery powered two stage compressor is most efficient.

Having said that, the primary difference(s) between MSP and SSP, supercharged or not, remain.

The whole supercharged idea was aimed at reducing pumping effort, yet still obtaining higher discharge pressures with a reasonable number of human pump strokes, and I think it's valid.
The "250 PSI tire pump" compressors, the compressor itself, not the plastic package, feeding into a hand pump isn't all that impractical in the butt of a rifle, and powered by several D batteries.
In any case, it's a transmission/conversion system, and every transmission/conversion system has losses.

Having said all that, I don't think either the MSP or SSP would be inherently more, or less, efficient than the other.
Both would require less human effort, and both would require some external power source of some kind.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 28th, 2002, 6:26 pm

May 31st, 2012, 8:28 pm #7

...would be to dump the pump altogether, and devote that volume and weight to more reservoir capacity. I bet you'd be guaranteed more total shots per fill.

If you really want to put a pump on a PCP, I favor putting the pump on the inlet side of the reservoir, making the gun self-contained.

Steve
Last edited by pneuguy on May 31st, 2012, 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2002, 1:34 pm

May 31st, 2012, 9:27 pm #8

Depends how you define efficiency.
I define it as the least amount of work for ME !
To that end, a battery powered two stage compressor is most efficient.

Having said that, the primary difference(s) between MSP and SSP, supercharged or not, remain.

The whole supercharged idea was aimed at reducing pumping effort, yet still obtaining higher discharge pressures with a reasonable number of human pump strokes, and I think it's valid.
The "250 PSI tire pump" compressors, the compressor itself, not the plastic package, feeding into a hand pump isn't all that impractical in the butt of a rifle, and powered by several D batteries.
In any case, it's a transmission/conversion system, and every transmission/conversion system has losses.

Having said all that, I don't think either the MSP or SSP would be inherently more, or less, efficient than the other.
Both would require less human effort, and both would require some external power source of some kind.
4 cycle model airplane engines with valves, I think you could convert one into a compressor,and drive with a small motor?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 28th, 2010, 12:23 am

May 31st, 2012, 9:34 pm #9

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 28th, 2010, 12:23 am

May 31st, 2012, 10:14 pm #10

...would be to dump the pump altogether, and devote that volume and weight to more reservoir capacity. I bet you'd be guaranteed more total shots per fill.

If you really want to put a pump on a PCP, I favor putting the pump on the inlet side of the reservoir, making the gun self-contained.

Steve
Last edited by robnewyork on May 31st, 2012, 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share