BE sues HALO
- Thread starter Beaker
- Start date
Alright I'll start this one.
This is a bunch of nonsense. If BE was is going to do this they should have started this back when the Rico and the Zap whateverthehellitiscalled came out. Now that there is a loader that is actually capable of beating theres hands down (sorry rico users but it is basically and ugly rev) they start to wine.
BE grow a backbone and improve your own equipment. So what, your Evalution loader failed and the Halo succeded, go back to the drawingboard and give us somthing that works!!
This is a bunch of nonsense. If BE was is going to do this they should have started this back when the Rico and the Zap whateverthehellitiscalled came out. Now that there is a loader that is actually capable of beating theres hands down (sorry rico users but it is basically and ugly rev) they start to wine.
BE grow a backbone and improve your own equipment. So what, your Evalution loader failed and the Halo succeded, go back to the drawingboard and give us somthing that works!!
Amen to that Jynxfactor I currently use a Rev but am having a Halo delivered soon and will have an oppertunity to see one in action (I think) they also look a lot better than the E-volution
Can't see why they didn't try this with the Rico though not bad loaders from what I hear.......
Can't see why they didn't try this with the Rico though not bad loaders from what I hear.......
The patent they are protecting is really for their Evolution.
It was (roughly) for a recessed area at the bottom of the loader with collects the balls and puts them into the feed neck. That is bascially exactly what the HALO does so therefore infringes their patent. For some reason they haven't pulled out the patent about using an eye.
Now the Rico uses a reed switch and not an eye so doesn't have any common ground with the Rev/Ev. The Zap one uses vibration - again, no similarity.
And it is NOTHING to do with whether a product is better or worse than any other. Patent law is purely about interlectual rights.
It was (roughly) for a recessed area at the bottom of the loader with collects the balls and puts them into the feed neck. That is bascially exactly what the HALO does so therefore infringes their patent. For some reason they haven't pulled out the patent about using an eye.
Now the Rico uses a reed switch and not an eye so doesn't have any common ground with the Rev/Ev. The Zap one uses vibration - again, no similarity.
And it is NOTHING to do with whether a product is better or worse than any other. Patent law is purely about interlectual rights.
OUCH, and somehow I think BE are going to have the funds to take this all the way
I didn't think much of the HALO anyway, it's so god damn heavy, and I can't fire that fast anyway. Buy either 12v or Rico, both are good products and do the job.
Simon
I didn't think much of the HALO anyway, it's so god damn heavy, and I can't fire that fast anyway. Buy either 12v or Rico, both are good products and do the job.
Simon
beaker correct me if im wrong, but doesnt the Rickochet series of loaders use a "bend sensor", not an eye, and thats why the issue hasnt been raised.
i cant honestly say i know what one is, but i dont think its a light dependant sensor, more likely a sensor physically moved by the passing of a ball through it.
i cant honestly say i know what one is, but i dont think its a light dependant sensor, more likely a sensor physically moved by the passing of a ball through it.
The Rico uses a bend sensor which sticks out into the hopper neck. every time a ball passes it bends the sensor which activates the motor.
So it agitates with every ball fired
So it agitates with every ball fired
I've never used a Rico, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that system mean that in the (unlikely) event of there being a jam (let's for argument's sake say two balls are blocking the feed neck), the agitator wouldn't do anything? No ball passes, so no spinning of the spinny thing! Seems a bit odd to me.
Well to take my angel as an example.
The feed tube holds 5 balls and the reed sensor sits between the 4th and 5th ball. So there is all-ways a ball to trip the sensor. For it to jam it would need to jam in such a way that when ball 5 drops (to where ball 4 is), the agitator is unable to move, in which case your stuffed regardless of which type of agitator you use.
The agitator (unlike the rvvy) doesn't spin when there is no paint left in the hopper, but thats what the ammo counter warning is for.
The only problem with the rico is when you first get it since you need to get the height right so that the reed switch sits between two balls, but that only takes about 5 mins to sort out.
The feed tube holds 5 balls and the reed sensor sits between the 4th and 5th ball. So there is all-ways a ball to trip the sensor. For it to jam it would need to jam in such a way that when ball 5 drops (to where ball 4 is), the agitator is unable to move, in which case your stuffed regardless of which type of agitator you use.
The agitator (unlike the rvvy) doesn't spin when there is no paint left in the hopper, but thats what the ammo counter warning is for.
The only problem with the rico is when you first get it since you need to get the height right so that the reed switch sits between two balls, but that only takes about 5 mins to sort out.
