"The majority of things in our lives are created by folks no smarter than the rest. Afterall, the world is comprised, and operated by C average people intellctually, academically, and morally. These people are often the great pioneers that set the precedent for what excellence should be."
Not the force/stroke curve, I get that and good for them, it's a very novel idea. The BS is:
"Finally, the Turbo Aire pump generates less heat than the competitive pumps. There are three primary reasons:
- Slower compression rate at the end of the stroke
- Thick, aluminum cylinder required to withstand the 3,000 psi pressure absorbs the heat
- No interconnected stages that preheat the air and transfer the heat to the next stage
The evidence of these improvements can be demonstrated by simply pumping up an airgun. The Turbo Aire can charge an air rifle from 0 to 3,000 psi without resting and the cylinder and base are only mildly warmer afterwards. Competitive pumps actually have a warning to stop pumping after 10 minutes to let the pump cool down before resuming pumping or risk damaging the seals. The base of these pumps becomes excessive hot during operation. By the way, all that heat generated is wasted energy you are expending that is not being used to pressurize your airgun! The Turbo Aire is more thermodynamically efficient."
Not even the great Crosman gods can change the laws of thermodynamics. The same amount of air compressed the same amount heats the same way. The fact that their pump has a "thick aluminum cylinder" and gets only "mildly warmer" in no way indicates that the temperature of the air is less, only that the heatsink used to cool the air is better. That does not equate to "more thermodynamically efficient" A previous statement in the article "The work done is actually the same between the two pumps (area under the curves)" so unless it takes less strokes for the same end result, there is no efficiency gain and I don't see that claim anywhere.
Knock it off Crosman, there's no need to embellish the trugh. The pump is a good idea, it's much like the leverage of the side-pump on the Indy which increases as the pump nears the end of the stroke resulting in a decrease in force even as the pressure is increasing. Make that point and let it be.
Wow,isn`t even out yet,There is a principle which is
February 13 2012, 6:53 PM
a bar against all information which is proof against all arguments and which
cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance.That principle is contempt
prior to investigation.Am looking forward to its release.
Looking forward to trying one.Wonder what rebuilding it would be like?
I dont know all the math and physics stuff. When I checked it out at the shot show, this pump appears to be much more robust than an old 3 stage version I had years ago. And all they said about it was that it would take about the same # of pumps, but the pumping would be easier. Maybe they shoulda left it at that, eh?
Just because you don't know where the heat goes does not make them an idiot
February 13 2012, 8:47 PM
Yes, the compression will generate the same total amount of heat. But that does not mean that the two different systems are equal from a thermal management standpoint.
Amazingly, this looks like a single stage pump design. As such, it should run much cooler than a normal three stage hand pump. This is the full compression chamber gets a fresh ambient temperature charge inside it on the intake with each upstroke, and the entire compression tube is exposed to ambient to help radiate the heat better (unlike the three stage pumps, where the third stage only gets a hot pressurized charge coming in at about 800 psi already, and very little direct convective cooling of the pump tube since it is buried inside). I bet it is the larger tube acting as a radiator that is a bigger factor in the cooler operation than the big base block.
Based on what I understand of the design, it is a vastly supior step up from the cooling standpoint. The weekness of the three stage pumps is that the tird stage is buried deep inside the pump, reducing the ability of the compression toube to cool through normal convective processes.
I like it from a themal standpoint! It solves the REAL problem with today's hand pumps, which really isn't the effort - it is the thermal problem and the time it takes to fill a gun with the cool down time factored in.
If it is durable, the reduced peak effort is really just a bonus in my book. The continuous duty cycle is the real selling point. If it works, my Hill pump just lost half its value.
Also, as a single tube, there is no work on the upstroke
February 14 2012, 7:46 AM
I too thought the curves don't look very equal, but I think it is becasue it is a single stage design.
There is no compression on the up stroke on this new pump, and although it is no where near what is on the down stroke on a three stage pump, it does add up to quite a bit of work over the full cycle - the upstroke is equal to the down stroke on the first several strokes of a three stage hand pump.
I think the key here is that this is a very different animal to what we are used to, and the marketing guys that wrote up the description really don't understand what they are dealing with . . . .
"The work done is actually the same between the two pumps (area under the curves)"
If the area under those two curves shown is the same I'll eat my Excalibre.
Point 2: The Crosman turbo shows force "on the handle" in excess of 100 lb from 11 to 18 inches of travel - the generic pump just 2" from 20" to 21". The latter comes at the ideal point to "drop your weight" on the handle. With the turbo it comes when the biomechanics of arm trunk and legs relationships make it more difficult ( especially for Tony )through the middle of the stroke.
Force of 50 + lb needed from 7" to 20" with the turbo; just from 18" to 21" with the generic pump example. Again the latter at the ideal "drop the weight" position.
Point 3: I'll stop here: Crosman is suggesting / implying one needs to be 200 lb heavy to pump 3000 psi. I've got news ( and so have many of you ). I presently weigh 160 lb and am 75 yrs by the end of the month and have no difficulty habitually pumping an FX pump to 4,350 psi. It's how you pump that counts - you must have heard that before ............. Kind regards, Yrrah.
there will be good ones and too many lemons to keep the focus on the ingenuity of the design. I for one really wish we'd get off of this disasterous outsourcing kick. I'd like my Benjamin airguns, for example, that much more if they were made right here! I think the crumby exchange rate would make domestic manufacture competitive given the high prices from Europe and the QC could only go up...
"HOW!" ??? perhaps "How?" Looks like frigging spam.
The rest of you should put the thermo details aside, and admit that by mechanical apparatus it is possible to change the force curve to better distribute the work. The poor quality of the documentation and the lack of math or hard numbers doesn't change that. Somewhere there is a clever engineer that came up with this system of levers and he should be proud. We can at least assume that they did not simply reduce the pump to half the size of the competition, thus reducing the force required by a factor of two but doubling the number of strokes required.
Those of you that yearn for "Made in America" quality should take a close look at what is right in front of you. Many Americans can't even write their own language. Here is an example of professionals, presumably employed to write, that can't get the basic description of the machine done without glaring mistakes.
JK's Airgun Forums, moderators, and administrators are not responsible for any problems that may occur from reading or using content posted on this forum, as they are the exclusive responsibility of two parties: the person who posted it and the person who acted on said posted information.Use of our forums by people under 18 years old is allowed only with legal guardian(s) present.