New size paintballs?

[Buddha 3]

Well, what can I say ........ I been hired to help the cause for this next revolution in paintball. I know Billy and Adam Gardner extremely well because I played with them for the All Americans for 2 years and stayed at their houses whenever I went over there ........ and the man behind all this is? ............. well, it's .......... another mate of mine whose name is..... a riverside town

Let's cryptic clue it for you .... wealthy day of the week losing its rear end.

If you do the Times crossword, this should be easy for you, if not, put your thinking cap on

Have fun.... the revolution is coming guys !

Green?

 

[Robbo]

Green?

Canuck...

 

[PaintBaller.ie]

Does it mean that paint suppliers will completly stop making .68 balls? With the thousands of .68 markers out there, they will still be a demand for the bigger ball.

Not to mention the 100,000's of rental markers around the world that use .69

 

[Robbo]

Does it mean that paint suppliers will completly stop making .68 balls? With the thousands of .68 markers out there, they will still be a demand for the bigger ball.

I think they'll come a time when a critical mass is reached and the growth curve will get steeper.... so steep in fact, it will eventually mean the death of 68 calibre ball.

 

[PaintBaller.ie]

I think they'll come a time when a critical mass is reached and the growth curve will get steeper.... so steep in fact, it will eventually mean the death of 68 calibre ball.

But for that to happen.... it will mean that the new system will have to be accepted or worse... forced upon players. Either way, it is still a few years off, no?

 

[Robbo]

But for that to happen.... it will mean that the new system will have to be accepted or worse... forced upon players. Either way, it is still a few years off, no?

I think you'll find it will be embraced as against just accepted...and in no way will anyone be forced to adopt it, but yes, it will take a few years for this to happen.
After all, XBall didn't happen overnight and nor did Rome get built.

 

[manike]

I think you'll find it will be embraced.

I'm curious as to why it will be embraced?

Pete, have you done the math?

I'm stunned by the press releases claiming greater range, greater accuracy, and easy breaking paint.

None of those claims match my calculations and experiments from back when PMI tried to do 55 cal paint.

The energy in the ball is just sooo much less, and obviously a sphere gets stronger as it gets smaller (given that the shell is made the same way).

If you bring the energy of a smaller diameter projectile up to get the same energy it tends to penetrate clothing and be a lot more painful as the same impact energy is put into a smaller area on the person, and because the ball is harder to break (given it's made the same way as a traditional ball).

Many of the claims I am reading appear to break the laws of physics.

What velocity are they intending to shoot these things at?

Will the material used differ in density to conventional paintballs?

Will the shell material be any different?

Will the thickness of the shell change?

Unless there is something spectacular that hasn't been released yet, I'm very apathetic to this concept.

It's flopped every time someone has tried to do it in the past. What's old is new, I guess. We've had 0.5 cal paint before, as well as 0.62, and 0.55 and recently 0.43.

 

[PaintBaller.ie]

The energy in the ball is just sooo much less, and obviously a sphere gets stronger as it gets smaller (given that the shell is made the same way).

Since Kinetic energy is 1/2*M*V^2 ( Mass by velocity squared for those wondering) Some rough calculations for the KE are.

Say a standard .69 paintball as 3.2 grams, 300fps (91.4 m/s)= 13 Joules

Now say a new .5 caliber with half the mass for talks sake

@ 300fps = 7 joules
@ 350fps (106.7m/s) = 9 joules
@ 400fps (121m/s) = 11 joules


Indeed the K.E involved is a lot less when assuming that mass of the new paintball is half that of current ones. Perhaps they use some different fill that is heavier / thicker and markers better, thus increasing the mass?

Either that, the new shell material is very brittle and breaks easy.

 

[manike]

Paintballer.ie good post.

We can work out the masses to go a little further.

68 Cal = 1.317ci
50 Cal = 0.524ci

So 50 cal = (0.524/1.317)*100 = 39.787% the mass of a 68 Cal ball given that they are made with the same density materials.

So it's got 40% of the mass.

If we just look at the energy considerations.

Paintballs vary in mass quite significantly. I've measured them from 2.8g to 3.2g.

3.2g is nice because it's 50 grains and makes the math really simple.

http://www.pyramydair.com/site/articles/formulas/

Energy of a 68 cal ball if fired at 300fps = 10ftlbs.

Mass of a 50 cal ball made the same way as a conventional ball = 0.4*50 = 20 grains.

Energy of a 50 Cal ball if fired at 300fps = 4ftlbs

Velocity of a 68 Cal ball to have the same energy as the 50 cal ball at 300fps... = 190fps

Velocity of a 50 cal ball so that it leaves the muzzle with the same energy as a 68 cal ball = approx. 475fps.

I really hope the plan isn't to be shooting smaller (and thus potentially harder to break) projectiles at higher velocities in order to get the same energy. Then we get into all sorts of concerns with impact injuries, penetration and if our safety equipment is adequate...

We need more details on what is being proposed, and whats revolutionary about this. I don't see it, yet.

Any thought been given to the ASTM standards and issues too?

 

[Robbo]

Si, I hadn't done the math no but thanks for serving it up mate, it took me back a few years to my teaching days, now I remember why I gave that all up

Anyway, I'm not sure why you would question the description 'revolution', that seems trivial and also quite wrong ... anything 'new' that will, if adopted, overturn the present wholesale usage of a certain item within our sport, especially something as fundamental as paint, can quite easily be described as 'revolutionary' .... Seems to me Si, you wish to put this down in some way mate.....reasons?
Or is it startlingly obvious and not one I really wish to articulate here.
Come on mate, stick to the science, it befits you more.

I detest the fact you bought into this, the whole notion of safety in such a negative and scaremongering way, do you honestly think Richmond is gonna get involved in something that would / could potentially harm even one person???
Are you insane Si?
No, you ain't, so why mention that cr@p?
You know this won't be the case and never would be ...... your posts are looking agenda-ridden (which of course you will deny) with every new offering Si...and please don't give me, 'oh but Pete, I am just trying to flag things up for the player and they are the ones I am worried about'.

I think you know Richmond better than that Si .... you really do.
You made mention of something for reasons other than what you imply.

As for the math?
You, as well as I, when doing any calculations concerning this 50 cal ball are shoving in variables that you (or I) have no idea of their real values.
And if you are happy to base your conclusions on such calculations then you set yourself well apart form any responsible critic that I know of.
I honestly have not been party to the development of the ball, I do not know the chemistry of the fill, the chemistry of the shell or their relative masses or consistencies.
I have no knowledge of its ballistic parameters or anything Si.
I cannot do the math coz I haven't got all the information and my comments are 100% based upon what I have been told.
I have known Richmond for a long time as you know, and he hasn't ever lied / deceived / misled me in any way and gives me no cause whatsoever to doubt whatever he gets involved with.
I have talked to a few of his team who have been working on this and they are the guys who told me what they had achieved ... I have no reason to doubt anything they told me mate.

Now, either you are trying to impress people with your mathematics skills (I don't think you are that petty Si) or you are trying to undermine the whole idea of a new concept before it's even started .... come on Si, let's not go down that road mate on my site ... if you are gonna post on this subject, then please adhere to responsible criticism and try to hit us with conclusions that are emergent properties of responsible calculations and not the Mickey Mouse Math you just served up.