Let us say we are using an 8 pound springer rather than a three and a half pound pumper for two hours. You must add to the springer energy usage the amount spent in lifting and aiming the far heavier springer. I wonder what the energy use comparison would be then.
My point here is that springers ARE theoretically more efficient than multi-pump-pneumatics and PCPs due to the adiabatic heating/cooling losses. Pneumatics may actually be 6 times less efficient than springers. HOWEVER, IMO this difference has NO PRACTICAL VALUE!There are pros and cons for EACH rifle type, but the theoretical efficiency difference between springers and pneumatics is a NON-ISSUE for everyone other than a PhD Physics candidate writing a dissertation on the efficiency of each process.
I prefer pumpers and C02.Stay safe,J~
Work is Energy is the Integral of a variable Force over a variable Distance.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) Using only peak force values and no distance values is insufficient to determine the work done. The Force over Distance is DIFFERENT FOR EVERY RIFLE.That being said, springers can convert almost 1/3 of their STORED SPRING ENERGY into muzzle energy. If your arm force over the full cocking distance INTEGRATES to about 51 ft-lbs input to the spring, then about 17 ft-lbs can be transferred from the spring to the pellet.When you PUMP (COMPRESS) AIR in a multi-pump pneumatic or PCP rifle, a significant portion of the WORK goes into HEATING the compressed air (Adiabatic Heating). That HEAT is then LOST as the air cools to approximately ambient temperature. When room temperature compressed air is released it does work on the pellet but the temperature of that air DROPS (Adiabatic Cooling).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process#Adiabatic_heating_and_coolingTHAT SAME COMPRESSION HEAT is also generated in a spring-piston air rifle but it HAS NO TIME TO COOL or dissipate and is still PRESENT inside the springer to ADD energy to the pellet.There is a saying that springers are HEATERS and PCPs are COOLERS. When you understand adiabatic heating/cooling, this statement seems obvious.My point here is that springers ARE theoretically more efficient than multi-pump-pneumatics and PCPs due to the adiabatic heating/cooling losses. Pneumatics may actually be 6 times less efficient than springers. HOWEVER, IMO this difference has NO PRACTICAL VALUE!There are pros and cons for EACH rifle type, but the theoretical efficiency difference between springers and pneumatics is a NON-ISSUE for everyone other than a PhD Physics candidate writing a dissertation on the efficiency of each process.
Maybe less efficient but smaller lighter and more versatile This is actually interesting though, and not something I ever thought about.Maybe someone should invent a multi stage springer with say 3 different power levels.1/3 cock, half cock, and full cock.