(From Al Waters) Rob, The NAMBA Board of Directors has passed your proposal. It will be added to the rule book and copies sent to all NAMBA members later this year. Thank you for writing the proposal in rule book form with an explanation. Job well done. Al Waters NAMBA President ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current NAMBA safety wording: 3. The primary (unregulated) CO2 supply vessel, whether refillable bottle or disposable cartridge, and any components between the CO2 supply and the regulator, as well as the regulator that controls the pressure from the primary CO2 supply vessel, must be commercially manufactured. In addition, if any part of the gas system after the regulator exceeds 200 psi, then those components must be commercially manufactured also. Proposed NAMBA safety wording: 3. The primary (unregulated) CO2, HPA or Nitrogen supply vessel, whether refillable bottle or disposable cartridge, and any components between the CO2, HPA or Nitrogen supply and the regulator, as well as the regulator that controls the pressure from the primary CO2, HPA or Nitrogen supply vessel, must be commercially manufactured. In addition, if any part of the gas system after the regulator exceeds 200 psi, then those components must be commercially manufactured also.
Thanks, Greg! It was a long haul, and I had help from Ben Lee and Wreno Wynne, who also deserve kudos. Now we have to figure out how to integrate it into our respective flavors of the hobby. Rob
yeah. do you happen to have a comparison between #shots per oz co2 and # shots per ci HPA? I've seen some numbers for paintball, and HPA seemed awfully inefficient (although who knows if the numbers were correct or not) on a shots per unit stored energy basis... (damn us engineers, always after the technical stuff). the previous question is more a curiosity.
I have had very good luck in dealing with NAMBA, actually. Yes, there's a certain amount of red tape involved in any buraucracy, but the individuals involved are all hard-working, helpful folks. Rob
Hi Greg, Unfortunately, there are too many variables involved, and HPA is too new to have established any statistics in rc warship combat. HPA/Nitrogen has grown in popularity in paintball due to its inherent stability (no liquid CO2-to-gas conversion issues). Because freezing is eliminated as a factor, HPA/Nitrogen is theoretically more user-friendly for warship combat, as the tanks can be laid horizontally in the bottom of the hull. In paintball - especially in rapid fire, serious competition, HPA/Nitrogen has almost entirely replaced CO2. Rob
Kotori and my VUs are designed to use both a 20oz CO2 bottle and a 48cu aluminum HPA tank. All I need to do is unscrew the regulator from one and put it on the other and I'm ready to fight. Because of this design feature we have tried CO2 with and without an anti-siphon tube and compared it to HPA. 20oz CO2 bottle on its side, without an anti-siphon tube: after firing several shots in battle the safety switch was frozen open, and had to be thawed for 30 seconds with warmth from my hands before I could safe the system. 20oz CO2 bottle on its side, with anti-siphon tube: I could maintain rate-of-fire whenever I had a target. Frost developed on the side of the regulator, but not on the safety switch. 48cu aluminum HPA bottle: no worries about putting it on its side. Maintained roughly double the rate of fire whenever I had a target. Regulator was cool to touch after the battle, but no frost or condensation. Gas usage: With HPA, my bottle would start at 3000 to 2700PSI, and would end with around 1200 to 1000 PSI. With CO2, I never got more than 15oz into my bottle to start with. At the end, I still had something in there, but I could not tell how much. It was not enough to fight a second sortie, as Kotori found out the hard way.
Follow-up Summary on HPA/Nitrogen as an Alternative to CO2 Now that HPA/Nitrogen has been approved by NAMBA for combat, a few issues arise that need to be decided on the club level. The work we did to have HPA/Nitrogen included in the NAMBA safety rules did not cover *how* it should be used. The entire effort was expended in order to get an official NAMBA position on it, either pro or con. The reason for this action was that people in at least two clubs were already either using HPA/Nitrogen, or were planning to. This was not in violation of NAMBA rules, by the way, since HPA/Nitrogen was neither allowed nor disallowed - it was simply not mentioned, and NAMBA coverage of an HPA/Nitrogen incident was not clear as a result. Our efforts succeeded in getting it allowed, and all that means is that the use of HPA/Nitrogen is now a legitimate option for clubs. It does not mean that clubs have to allow its use. Clubs may opt to disallow it, to disallow composite-wrapped, 4,500 PSI tanks while allowing all-metal, 3,000 PSI tanks, or to allow either type. Some of the club issues that I can see off the top of my head that need to be resolved are: * Should the club allow HPA/Nitrogen? * Should the club limit HPA/Nitrogen to 3,000 PSI, all-metal tanks? * Who pays for it/supplies it? * How much HPA/Nitrogen is required for a day's battling? * What does a fill station look like? * How do we prevent improper filling? * How does the HPA/Nitrogen supply get to and from the pond? * Are there special storage issues? * What are the safety steps that should be taken to protect the onboard supply from damage? Are they different from those taken to protect CO2 bottles? * Are there special considerations for onboard installation that are different from CO2 installation? I'm sure there are others, but I felt a duty to complete my mission by submitting this summary. The rest is up to the clubs. Rob Wood
Wow, those are great questions. I might feel differently about using it if I knew some more about it and how to fill it... Safely
