Jump to content


Photo

Barrel Length Guide . . .

More commonly used blasters for right now . . .

15 replies to this topic

#1 Foam Ninja

Foam Ninja

    Member

  • Members
  • 185 posts
  • Location:Aurora IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 May 2010 - 08:41 PM

Let me start this off with saying that owe Dizzy for the brass lengths since I am not a brass barrel kind of person. Also that this thread is for JUST BARREL REPLACEMENT, got that. That means stock springs and plugged OPRV's (That is the only other thing with Air Tank blasters since everyone plugs them). Oh yeah the last thing is that your PETG lengths might differ a little because of dart fit. With that let's begin with this list.

NOTE: This list will be getting added too. So if you don't see a blaster on here PM me the barrel length and barrel (I know I will be getting a lot of PM's in the begining).

Nite Finder

CPVC = 4- 4 1/2 in.
PETG = 4-5 in.
Brass = 4 1/2-5 in.

Longshot

CPVC = 8-10 in.
PETG = ? I haven't seen a PETGed longshot yet.
Brass = 8-12 in.

Tech Target

CPVC = 4-5 1/2 in.
PETG = 4-5 in.
Brass = 3-4 in.

AT3K

CPVC = 9-10 in.
PETG = 8-10 in.
Brass = 8-12 in.

Admins please let this topic stay up I will be upgrading this regurlaly, and it hopefully can help some nerfers.

Also feel free to leave Blaster names, barrel lengths, and Barrel types here.

Edited by Foam Ninja, 08 May 2010 - 08:53 PM.

  • 0
QUOTE(Soothsayer @ Jul 18 2010, 03:51 PM) View Post

Still haven't beat Foam Ninja in a sword fight


QUOTE

1.The baby would blow up do to being made of pure fail.
2.I GIVE UP! I AM GETTING MY GAS ELSEWHERE!!
-Nerf Mafia

#2 soccerbeast003

soccerbeast003

    Member

  • Members
  • 206 posts
  • Location:Midland, North Carolina

Posted 08 May 2010 - 08:47 PM

See, there's a problem with this. Not all darts fit different barrel lengths and have different needs. I think if your experienced enough to modify a gun, your smart enough to find an adequate barrel length.
  • 0
Christine Everheart: You've been called the Da Vinci of our time. What do you say to that?

Tony Stark: Absolutely ridiculous. I don't paint.

#3 Foam Ninja

Foam Ninja

    Member

  • Members
  • 185 posts
  • Location:Aurora IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 May 2010 - 08:49 PM

Well the intention with this is for the less experienced modders.
  • 0
QUOTE(Soothsayer @ Jul 18 2010, 03:51 PM) View Post

Still haven't beat Foam Ninja in a sword fight


QUOTE

1.The baby would blow up do to being made of pure fail.
2.I GIVE UP! I AM GETTING MY GAS ELSEWHERE!!
-Nerf Mafia

#4 Hi Yah

Hi Yah

    Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 08:51 PM

For your nf barrel lenghts I would recommend 4"-4.5" for CPVC. And about 5" if you're using brass. Brass isn't as tight as CPVC. And PETG is in between CPVC and brass.
  • 0
The yellow balls are also slightly smaller in diameter than the green ones.

#5 Banshee

Banshee

    Member

  • Members
  • 668 posts
  • Location:Chandler, Arizona

Posted 08 May 2010 - 09:00 PM

There is an actual mathematical formula for plunger to barrel ratio. I'm no mathematician here but I think it was that the barrel should be just under the same volume as the plunger tube. However this isn't always accurate due to imperfect seals, or to tight or loose dart fits.
  • 0
Like my page on Facebook! PM me, I do commissions!

#6 Foam Ninja

Foam Ninja

    Member

  • Members
  • 185 posts
  • Location:Aurora IN
  • State:Indiana
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 May 2010 - 09:09 PM

There is an actual mathematical formula for plunger to barrel ratio. I'm no mathematician here but I think it was that the barrel should be just under the same volume as the plunger tube. However this isn't always accurate due to imperfect seals, or to tight or loose dart fits.


I did not know this, thank you Banshee. It seems this thread is getting a lot more feedback than I thought it would.
  • 0
QUOTE(Soothsayer @ Jul 18 2010, 03:51 PM) View Post

Still haven't beat Foam Ninja in a sword fight


QUOTE

1.The baby would blow up do to being made of pure fail.
2.I GIVE UP! I AM GETTING MY GAS ELSEWHERE!!
-Nerf Mafia

#7 PETGrevolution

PETGrevolution

    Member

  • Banned
  • 37 posts

Posted 08 May 2010 - 09:11 PM

There is an actual mathematical formula for plunger to barrel ratio. I'm no mathematician here but I think it was that the barrel should be just under the same volume as the plunger tube. However this isn't always accurate due to imperfect seals, or to tight or loose dart fits.

Yes, Banshee is correct, There is mathematical equation for barrel length, let's start with the plunger tube length, times the plunger diameter, plus spring compression at catch(hard to figure out, springs say LBs per inch),then minus deadspace, also, there are other factors as well, I'm still trying to figure out the equation. Have fun.
-Rev
Call me Rev

You call a wrap of e-tape a modification? It is just there to keep the breech more secure. Wow, you really are mentally retarted(Ryan Mcnumbers). -Nate the Great

Do it yourself and then come back.
Otherwise, Fuck off.
-Ilzot

#8 Ryan201821

Ryan201821

    Prince Edward

  • Contributors
  • 1,892 posts
  • Location:Lombard
  • State:Illinois
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:00 PM

This is the worst idea ever. There are way too many factors for this to ever be useful, namely dart/barrel fit which you haven't accounted for whatsoever.

This will only confuse new nerfers rather than helping them. For one person these arbitrary numbers might work well, but for others, these aren't going to be the optimal barrel length. Again, you've left out many, many factors that determine ideal barrel length.

Really, empirical testing is the best thing to do here.
  • 0

#9 utahnerf

utahnerf

    Member

  • Members
  • 339 posts
  • Location:Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan in summer; Aspen, CO for school.

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:06 PM

How about the less experienced members do this for themselves, using the grand old idea trial and error. Seriously, I don't think we need to be making new topics for new members, they can find out how on their own.

Edited by utahnerf, 08 May 2010 - 10:08 PM.

  • 0

#10 CaliforniaPants

CaliforniaPants

    Futtbrustrated

  • Moderators
  • 459 posts
  • Location:Fresno, CA
  • State:California
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:07 PM

The correct equation for barrel length is 8=D~; where D = the spring constant and ~ = plunger volume.
  • 0

trans as shit because fuck you


#11 Doom

Doom

    NH's Official In-House Physicist

  • Administrators
  • 559 posts
  • State:Texas
  • Country:United States
  • u/btrettel on Reddit

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:25 PM

There is an actual mathematical formula for plunger to barrel ratio. I'm no mathematician here but I think it was that the barrel should be just under the same volume as the plunger tube. However this isn't always accurate due to imperfect seals, or to tight or loose dart fits.


Scroll down to the bottom if you want to read the important part.

You could always figure it out for yourself. I've figured it out for pneumatics and have began working on springers. It's not hard! I let my computer do the hard part; it ran for probably a total of two weeks straight to tabulate everything I have right now.

Start with first principles. The laws of conservation of mass, momentum, and energy go a long way. Once the dynamics of the spring gun system are described by differential equations, non-dimensionalize them, and numerically solve them for a large variety of situations, looking for a pattern. Specifically, you want to find where energy efficiency peaks.

(You also could do a lot of tests, non-dimensionalize the results, and figure out a correlation from there, but computers are far faster than people and the problem is relatively simple to describe mathematically.)

The non-dimensionalization is very important. Non-dimensionalization allows the results to be scaled and also reduces the number of variables. Note that plunger volume to barrel volume ratio has no dimensions. Obviously, that means that it's value is independent of any dimensions of the gun. If you test a gun that is twice as large but has the same plunger volume to barrel volume ratio, you can scale the results down. This is the same principle that allows wind tunnel testing at scale to work.

I'll detail how to start this for the low velocity isothermal gun case. Note that reality isn't isothermal. As the plunger adds energy to the plunger tube gas, the gas heats up. And as the dart takes energy from the barrel gas, the barrel gas cools. The isothermal assumption merely makes the equations more manageable. Any idiot can add the energy equation for the more accurate adiabatic case.

The low velocity part implies that the pressure waves travel far faster than the dart (so no darts over about Mach 0.3) and that dynamic pressure effects are negligible. We'll also make the assumption that the barrel gas has no inertia. This means we can use Newton's second law on the projectile with static pressures instead of the conservation of momentum.

Another assumption is that there are no leaks. This is good for the ideal case, but often what we deal with is less than ideal and leaks are unavoidable.

I'll now detail how to model spring guns. Be aware that I take the lumped parameter approach. Also, I'd be happy to provide diagrams that should help explain what I'll detail below if necessary.

If you aren't familiar with at least the basic idea of calculus, skip to the bold part below. You might have to scroll a good bit.

Based on Newton's second law, the mass times the acceleration of the projectile is equal to the forces applied to the projectile. At this stage the friction force is assumed to act like a pressure force in the negative x direction for positive velocities for simplicity. This is somewhat unrealistic because it does not distinguish between dynamic and static friction, but that's not too big of a deal. Static friction is far more important than dynamic friction in spring guns.

m_d * x_d''(t) = A_b * (P_b(t) - P_atm - P_fd * sgn(x_d'(t))

m_d is the dart mass
x_d is the dart position
A_b is the barrel area
P_b is the pressure in the barrel
P_atm is atmospheric pressure
P_fd is the equivalent pressure of friction for the dart

Some logic is necessary to determine whether the applied forces cause the dart to move. If the applied forces aside from friction are lower than the static friction force and the dart is stationary, then the dart will remain stationary.

Similar logic applied to the piston returns the equation below.

m_p * x_p''(t) = A_p * (P_atm - P_p(t) - P_fd * sgn(x_p'(t)) + k * (L_s - x_p)

m_p is the piston mass
x_p is the piston position in the plunger (x_p = 0 is the back end of the plunger tube and x_p = L_p is the front of the plunger tube)
A_p is the piston area
P_atm is atmospheric pressure
P_fp is the equivalent pressure of friction for the piston
k is the spring constant
L_s is a constant that depends on the length of the spring and how it is positioned (generally it is the length of the spring)

How much air flows from the piston tube to the barrel (or vice-versa)? I could write a fairly long derivation, but instead I'll refer you all to any book on gas dynamics of fluid power control. Look for parts about flow through any generic restriction. I like the results provided in a book titled "Fluid Power Control" edited by John Blackburn and some of his associates on p. 214 to 217. This is a good old book that should be available in any decent engineering library. You can also use some simpler equations available on this page: http://www.engineeri...ents-d_277.html

So, find an equation for the mass flow rate m_dot as a function of upstream pressure, downstream pressure, and some other parameters.

Apply the principle of mass conservation to the plunger tube and you'll end up with an equation like the one below.

A_p * d/dt(rho_p * (L_p - x_p)) = -m_dot * sgn(P_b - P_c)

rho_p is piston tube gas density

Mass conservation applied to the barrel returns something like the following.

d/dt(rho_b * (A_b * x_d + V_d)) = m_dot * sgn(P_b - P_c)

rho_b is barrel gas density
V_d is the "dead volume" between the piston tube and dart (Note that this isn't always bad for performance... some HELPS performance and this can be mathematically demonstrated.)

You'll also need an equation of state to relate gas pressure, density, and temperature. The ideal gas law is very adequate here.

From the equations above, one could write them out more fully (using the product rule, algebraic manipulations, etc.), and from there non-dimensionalize them. To do so, define some non-dimensional parameters like x_d = L_b * x_d*. This basically means that x_d* varies from 0 to 1 where 0 is where the dart starts and 1 is where the dart exits the barrel.

Once the equations are fully non-dimensionalized, you can convert them to first-order ODEs and use whatever numerical scheme you desire to solve them. I'm not a math major, so I use Euler's method. Don't make fun of me.

If done correctly, you can produce nice tables like this: http://trettel.org/n...dm/pneu-eng.csv

That's the result of about 40 hours of continuous computing.

I hope those who read this far have an appreciation for how complicated this problem is. That's the easiest way to approach the problem of ideal barrel length. And I'll note that what I detail above isn't accurate for many situations.

The point is that very few people here can take this approach to the problem. And if you don't take this approach, what you do is probably very wrong.

If you couldn't figure out from my post above, I think most people would be better served by doing some rough tests, maybe following others' results for a good starting point. Empirical testing is the way to go. The problem of dart fit makes barrel lengths for springers fairly complicated. Not to mention the other factors that make the problem even more complicated.


If you're a very mathematical person and you want to try some real applied math, have at it.

The reason you don't see any simple formulas for barrel length is that none exist. Those who want to figure out theoretical performance already can and they realize that any rules don't apply in general. And I'm convinced that if they were made, people would misuse them, so I'm not too keen on promoting them heavily.

Edited by Doom, 08 May 2010 - 10:25 PM.

  • 0

#12 dizzyduck

dizzyduck

    Member

  • Members
  • 627 posts
  • Location:Louisville, Kentucky
  • State:Kentucky
  • Country:United States

Posted 08 May 2010 - 11:18 PM

Alright, I guess I have a bit of explaining to do before someone follows this and sends me an angry PM about how their blaster didn't work with a certain type of barrel.

Foam Ninja sent me a PM asking me what the ideal lengths for blasters was. I gave him a general range for each one because I didn't feel like playing Mr. Douchebag and telling him "figure it out on your own". I also didn't know he was planning to start this thread.

Anyone who knows my philosophy on modding knows that I don't subscribe to formulas or guides for this sort of thing. There are too many variables, most of all the foam's fit within your barrel material. And personally, I don't care enough to figure out every variable within dart/barrel fit, interior barrel friction, dart weight, air velocity, et cetera. If you want to do so to squeeze an extre 3-5 feet out of your blaster's maximum range, go for it.

Here's how I generally do it:

Spring pistols: 3-4"
Short no. 1s: 7-9"
Long no. 1s: 8-12"

If it works, stick with it. If it doesn't, try something else.
  • 0
Duck off.
Art & Stuff

#13 Fome

Fome

    Member

  • Banned
  • 312 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 12:10 AM

I've always had a pretty simple philosophy with barrel length:

Slow air release/high volume = longer barrels.
Quick air release/low volume = shorter barrels.

If you need more than a 12 inch barrel, your gun is probably too strong anyways.

If you get decent ranges with a relatively good degree of accuracy then don't worry about it. If not, play with some other lengths and figure it out from there. Barrel material (aside from brass) is pretty damn cheap.

It's not fucking rocket science here. One of the great things about this hobby is we don't have to optimize our equipment to be as efficient as possible. Good enough truly is good enough.

#14 moosa

moosa

    Member

  • Members
  • 243 posts
  • Location:Bangor, ME

Posted 09 May 2010 - 12:43 AM

Well the intention with this is for the less experienced modders.


Well what you're saying here is that we should give them an inadequate cheat sheet when they're fully capable of doing it the proper way themselves. I appreciate the intention; when I knew less I remember thinking a thread like this would be a great idea. At least you're trying to contribute something to the community. But there's a better way, and those who don't know how to find an optimum (or "good enough") barrel length yet need to be taught how to find it.
  • 0
Yes.

#15 ilzot

ilzot

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 11 May 2010 - 06:55 PM

-Shit that I'm not copying.-


Doom, you're a nerd.

All kidding aside, I'm working on learning a few simple programming languages. If I can figure them out, I want to give a Java calculator a try that'll determine this for you. I'll probably give your equations and calculations a try, because they're damn good.

On the topic of this topic, the idea pretty much sucks. With people like the Unholy Threesome taking over the 'Haven, less and less people are using stock plunger tubes or stock springs, and everything's getting too confusing and mixed for topics like these.

As said above, guess and test and you'll be fine.
  • 0
QUOTE(Vinnie D. @ Feb 1 2010, 05:28 AM) View Post

... to be able to get a better burst or sustained fire, rather than blowing the whole load at once.


#16 CaptainSlug

CaptainSlug

    Resident Mad Scientist

  • Administrators
  • 4,761 posts

Posted 11 May 2010 - 11:18 PM

This is the worst idea ever.

Agreed
  • 0
The little critters of nature, they don't know that they're ugly. That's very funny, a fly marrying a bumble bee. I told you I'd shoot, but you didn't believe me. Why didn't you believe me?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users