LGV Master Ultra .22 cal baseline chronoing

[Toxylon]

People are free to use whatever definitions they feel like, but we don't get anywhere unless we first agree on nomenclature. That was and is my point, not quibbling over semantics. Do we really want to perpetuate the misunderstanding and mis-interpreting that already happens on every discussion forum?

It is patently obvious that combustion happens in a diesel motor etc. But since the only extensive experimental published work on springer function uses those four phases they do, and uses them well, it is by far best to use those terms and definitions, instead of various levels of dieseling etc.

Yes, combustion and detonation are not clear-cut presence-absence kind of categories. But that applies to most every phenomenon on earth. Take blood pressure: a certain level is necessary for function, a certain range is optimal for longevity and a range above that is increasingly detrimental to longevity. It's all about the same circulation, with no inherent steps on the way, but we have created observation-based categories over it, in order to be able to communicate efficiently.

[uglymike]

I still regret selling my .22 LGV Challenger, I'd give 2x what I sold it for to have it back. Duke if I remember correctly, mine really liked the RWS Superdomes and JSBs in 13.4gr.

[Toxylon]

Good to know, Mike.

I've gleaned off of LGV owners' posts that the LGV really likes soft pellets, Exacts and AA's. Superdomes are fast and accurate in most of my .22 cals so far, but their terrible BC, and proven lousy KE retention at longer distances doesn't sit well with me.

In the past, I've done wonders with mid-velocity Exacts at up to 55 yards, so I'm heavily leaning towards them with the LGV. Of course I will test Superdomes and a bunch of others for accuracy, as well. I'm hoping to get the LGV really going this spring, work load permitting. The gun has oodles of promise.

[HectorMedina]

Oh I  screwed up this quote cut-the below are my questions for everyone
Hector et al-

1) by modern, non-dieseling lubes do you mean those described as silicone lubes-harder to ignite than carbon based lubes ?

2)The -crossman-silicone chamber oil-colorless transparent stuff tiny tubes-  it is less likely to ignite or mostly impossible to ignite?

3) the crosman silicone chamber lube-"feels pretty slippery" why not use it on various moving parts-if you want no combustion/detonation?


Thanks

Charlie

Charlie;

I almost missed your questions. LOL!

1.- Teflon based lubes are the modern, preferred, lubricant for "pop guns" They can handle very high pressures and temperatures without dissociating the long-chain molecules into shorter ones. Silicones are a FAMILY of compounds, and ONLY ONE  of them has been proven to be stable in the long run under spring-piston compression chambers' conditions: Poly-DiMethyl-Siloxane, VERY FEW commercial silicone oils are made with this compound. So you would need to read the MSDS sheet for the ones you are interested in.
Most of the other compounds de-compose to Silicon Oxides, and those are abrasives.
They particularly have a tendency to de-compose/degrade when there is a galvanic pair present (aluminum-steel is common in air guns), and even more so in salty environments. So after a few days of running well, the parts start to "gall", even though they are different materials and hardness and; in extreme cases, they can lock up completely. So, the REAL PROBLEM with "silicone oils" is, that for the most part you do not KNOW what you are getting into your gun.

Of the Teflon based lubricants, the DuPont one (Krytox) has proven to be hygroscopic (it absorbs moisture) and it is natural, it was developed  originally for the food industry that has extreme cleaning/maintenance routines, so it needs more maintenance than the Ultimox one. BOTH work, it's just info you need to decide before purchasing it, and once purchased, you need to follow through with your decision.

2.- I have not done my "flame test" with the Crosman Oil, but it is a fairly easy test to make:
Put a drop in a piece of paper.
Let it soak in.
Cut the paper's ends into triangles
Ignite the pointy ends of the paper
See if the oiled smudge burns and how fast it burns.
If it does not burn and even prevents the paper substrate from burning, it is clearly a good oil to use in compression chambers (ALWAYS SPARINGLY!)

3.- Again, I have no experience with the Crosman Chamber Oil.
The ONLY document I found in the Crosman website is this one:

https://f.hubspotusercontent00.net/hubfs/8151552/msds/SA0251-MSDS-Final.pdf

And it uses a different name than the catalogue/website/commercial channel, so, there is NO GUARANTEE that it is the same product, but there is no other "Nitro lubricant Oil" with silicone in the Crosman website.
The MSDS, in page 1 establishes the name as "Silicone Super Lubricant"
In page 3, it sets the Flammability, tested under the NFPA protocols to be a level 4 ("SEVERE")
In page 4 the MSDS says that it may explode when mixed with air.

With that information, I would, for sure, perform the flame test.

Now, what does a flame test looks like?


In red I have outlined the original edges of the smudge
On the left is a GOOD Silicone oil (Armasil), as you can see then flame propagated MOSTLY AROUND the smudge, but still managed to burn a little into the smudge with the "carrier"
On the right is a GOOD Teflon oil (Microlubrol HP-105); you can see that the penetration of the flame into the smudge was much less and that the oil "protected" the paper from burning. Furthermore the burning of the paper substrate managed to "push" the remaining liquid upwards and smear the written label. Indicating clearly that this liquid does not ignite under these conditions.

I KNOW, this is not a scientific test, and I KNOW that it is not industry standard, but it has helped me in the past choose lubricants; as an "absolute" test it may well be useless but, as a COMPARATIVE test it is useful.

IF you perform this test, take ALL necessary precautions and be advised that you are on your own. I cannot accept any responsibility for the performance of this test under conditions I cannot control.

HTH keep well and shoot straight!





HM

[HectorMedina]

People are free to use whatever definitions they feel like, but we don't get anywhere unless we first agree on nomenclature. That was and is my point, not quibbling over semantics. Do we really want to perpetuate the misunderstanding and mis-interpreting that already happens on every discussion forum?

It is patently obvious that combustion happens in a diesel motor etc. But since the only extensive experimental published work on springer function uses those four phases they do, and uses them well, it is by far best to use those terms and definitions, instead of various levels of dieseling etc.

Yes, combustion and detonation are not clear-cut presence-absence kind of categories. But that applies to most every phenomenon on earth. Take blood pressure: a certain level is necessary for function, a certain range is optimal for longevity and a range above that is increasingly detrimental to longevity. It's all about the same circulation, with no inherent steps on the way, but we have created observation-based categories over it, in order to be able to communicate efficiently.

Ilimakko;

I do agree to use universal nomenclatures and meanings of words.
Look the terms up in Wikipedia.
NOW
If you want to use "Detonation" as the Cardews used it, fine, I will agree to that, after all, all tribes have their own "lingo" LOL!

;-)

Keep well and shoot straight!






HM

[Toxylon]

Hector,

The semantics angle is just an aside. This entire debacle started when you claimed that if a springer is not operating in the Popgun phase it is Dieseling, with attendant horrific shot cycle issues and a drastically shortened mainspring and even other components life. This just isn't true, and that needs to be addressed.

[subscriber]

People are free to use whatever definitions they feel like, but we don't get anywhere unless we first agree on nomenclature. That was and is my point, not quibbling over semantics. Do we really want to perpetuate the misunderstanding and mis-interpreting that already happens on every discussion forum?

Let me translate that:  "You are free to your own interpretation, as long as it agrees with mine".

We are not quibbling about semantics.  We are arguing engineering terminology based on scientific principles.

[Toxylon]

Subscriber,

I am using the terms as used in scientific airgun research literature. That's a solid practice, no matter the discipline. No-one in this discussion, be they Cardews or any debaters here are lacking in understanding of the scientific principles involved.

[subscriber]

I would love to see references to the scientific airgun research literature you mentioned. 

Why not ask Hector what lube he recommends for springer compression cylinders?  I think it is  safe to assume he would not use any that diesel destructively.

The idea that dieseling is by definition destructive is obviously inaccurate.  The HW35 that you mentioned, that produced half its FPE from oil combustion probably had an oiled leather piston seal.  The combustion process was initiated by compression ignition. AKA dieseling.  And, many of those HW35s and other spring piston air rifles with leather seals are still around - despite dieseling on every shot.

Here is a scientific research paper on dieseling with spring airguns:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272168018_Dieseling_in_Spring_Piston_Airguns_-_A_Conceptual_Analysis

Subscriber,

I am using the terms as used in scientific airgun research literature. That's a solid practice, no matter the discipline. No-one in this discussion, be they Cardews or any debaters here are lacking in understanding of the scientific principles involved.

[subscriber]

Recommended reading:  https://www.gatewaytoairguns.org/GTA/index.php?topic=151150.0

"Detonation" is used to scare springer owners to avoid inappropriate lubrication strategies.  While well intended, that makes the term about as scientific in the context of "springers", as admonishing ship's captains to avoid certain parts of the ocean, because "there be dragons".  And that is my last word on the topic, in this thread.

[Toxylon]

Thanks for the links - I'll check them out, come free time!

[Mossonarock]

That's why I say detonation is when your gun blows up. If it didn't blow up, its dieseling to whatever degree. I like to keep things simple.

Speaking of dieseling and lubes, allow me to try to get this conversation back on topic or at least please forgive me for thread jacking. That paper burn test Hector suggests is very interesting. I will be trying it.
Here's the reason:
For my LGV Challenger, after I cleaned it out, I lubed the cylinder seals with RWS Silicone Air Chamber Lube since its plastic on metal friction in these guns. I only put the lube on the piston seal and the nylon bearing on the rear of the piston. I didn't put any in the compression chamber at all. I figured that was about as sparing of use as I could get. Yet, the gun is dieseling. I didn't expect that with this gun and I'm not sure what's going on. I did put grease on the spring to reduce the twang- leftovers from a Vortek kit. I suppose its possible that that grease is making its way off the spring, past the piston seal and into the compression chamber, then dieseling. Or, this RWS silicone oil isn't so heat resistant which would be disappointing and my idea of sparing use wasn't so sparing after all. I'm sure there's probably a better lube to use on these guns but I'm not aware of any. Otoh, I haven't gone into my LGV Competition Ultra at all and it doesn't twang or diesel. So, I've never bothered; I have no idea what lube is on it or how much. Its only been this LGV Challenger that has begged for some work on it and continues to. But its coming along nicely. Last night I was plinking peppermint candies at 15m with only using peep sight and hitting them every single time. Fun!

BTW: my .22 cal LGV competition ultra does better with medium to lighter weight pellets- say 14.3gr give or take. At 16j it really doesn't have the umph to push heavy pellets.

[phoebeisis]

Hector

Thanks

I will run the test this weekend.

The crosman silicone chamber oil-hmmm-it isn't cheap-tiny amount 1/2 ounce-$5 or so-but $5 anything is cheap-so.. I will see.

I will also test the tiny bottle of  "blue oil" that came with the TX200-I think it is strictly to lube joints-but I will have to read the bottle-

Thanks

Charlie

[HectorMedina]

Getting the thread back on track, these are numbers from a user, and I insert here Verbatim:

"Hello Hector,
Thanks for the heads up on light pellets wearing out the spring sooner. That was something I wasn't aware of. For now, I've been shooting 15.9gr pellets. I think the spring has settled down. Here's a 20 shot string and the stats:
670.664.665.666.671.670.663.672.672.667.664.663.663.666.660.657.667.663.664.672
Hi:672, Lo:657, Av:665,Es:15,Sd:4
The Es and Sd would probably tighten up if I did some pellet selection. Using that data, I get 15.6fpe. That ought to do. The OEM 16j powerplant wasn't quite enough to do the job.
I haven't added any grease but I also didn't clean the grease out. There wasn't much grease in there. Most of it is the original OEM grease."

This is using the CCA/Titan #1 kits without any spacing and leaving whatever was remaining of the Walther "FederFett" and "KolbenFett" in place.

I find these numbers interesting and that is why I am sharing with you all.

Keep well and shoot straight!





HM

[Yogi]

Charlie,

I think they are talking about Krytox in one of its various forms.

OK: So detonation is bad for the spring.  Isn't dieseling just as harmful to the piston seal?  Maybe not leather but the Poly-U ones that most people use.

Wasn't there once upon a time an airgun that had an ether port to encourage detonation?

-Y