Hammer De-Bounce Idea ... are my thoughs valid ?

[Motorhead]

Hammer bounce in PCP's & Co2 guns .... Twang of bounce in Pump & dump guns etc ....

* Idea *
The point of CONTACT between a valves poppet stem is generally STEEL against STEEL which is if you will like those Desk top Swinging ball toys connected by strings that click click click back and forth.
Valve stem gets hit by hammer, spring within and gas pressure send the stem back the other way and for a short time we get this back & forth kinetic action. ( AKA: valve bounce )

** Now**
What if the contact face of hammer where contacting valve stem had a firm yet resilient face along the line of 70/90 durometer polyurethane ?
The energy stored in the falling hammer would remain the same, On initial shot one would think because of the MUCH higher energy transferred across the resilient contact point would be minimal in loss, not know tho what energy loss would be ??
But as stem is reseating and pushing hammer back out this resiliency of connection between stem and hammer would in theory have a greater effect because of much reduced energy returning from the closing valve dampen the kinetic shock wave passing between them  ... Would it not ?


Thinkin out loud ...

[rsterne]

My guess is that the initial transfer of energy and momentum would be less efficient because of heat generated in the resilent material.... If that happens, you would need additional hammer strike to compensate.... Once that is added, to get back to the same valve opening.... I don't know if there would be a net reduction in bounce or not....

Although the valve stem is steel, it acts like the last ball in Newton's Cradle.... accelerating away from the rest.... Because it is opening against a spring and air pressure, it already acts more like hitting a basketball with a hammer than hitting an anvil.... It's not the BOUNCE we have to stop, it's the reopening of the hammer on secondary strikes....

Bob

[Motorhead]

It's not the BOUNCE we have to stop, it's the reopening of the hammer on secondary strikes....

Bob

Which was my thoughts on damping the kinetic transfer between parts.
Granted your initial strike energy may need to be raised slightly for equal transfer onto stem, but because of very extreme difference between energy being transferred across the proposed contact area, difference between PRIMARY hammer strike energy introduction to SECONDARY valve closure return cycle energy the resiliency of contact point could absorb whats bouncing the hammer for second strike ?

Again ... just thinkin out loud here 

[rangerman]

Didn't BSA already come up with a shuttle(with spring loaded ball detent) in between the valve stem and the hammer to absorb subsequent rebound strikes of the hammer after each shot?
I've only seen the patent drawings but it seems to be a sound design.
A properly chosen o-ring to take the place of the ball detent should work just as effectively.