G
Guest
Guest
Argh, I am currently window shopping https://www.nuvair.com/products/filtration/personal-filter-din.html for the LC-110. My problem is I keep undulating between the agreement of everything said above as it applies to compressed air and physics but then it logically conflicts with our data set regarding failures due to moisture incursion. IE: Do we really need 100% clean, dry, breathable air in the air guns or is a nominal amount of moisture acceptable?
We have folks hand-pumping with no filtration at all and we don't have reports of failure.
We have folks using those tampon style filters which saturate quickly and do not fully removal water vapor and no reports of failure.
With regard to the LC-110 and other systems such as the shoebox, which are specifically designed for air gun use it's hard for me to assert that additional filtration is required and the engineers have done some odd cost-benefit analysis and determined that they're going to provide us with an inadequate filtering product because of cost reduction.
... ugh ... I hate to spend $200 on something that isn't needed. The decision for additional filtering would be a no-brainer if we had forum reports of failed airguns due to moisture incursion *coupled* against a fill method. Or reports of moisture related failure at all. One would think the whole airgun tank/tube gas expansion during the shooting process and subsequent fill process as the pressures vary from 250 bar to 150 bar would be sufficient to adsorb any moisture and expel it during the shooting process.
All said, thank you all for the dialog and discussion, I'll keep reading this thread for sure.
We have folks hand-pumping with no filtration at all and we don't have reports of failure.
We have folks using those tampon style filters which saturate quickly and do not fully removal water vapor and no reports of failure.
With regard to the LC-110 and other systems such as the shoebox, which are specifically designed for air gun use it's hard for me to assert that additional filtration is required and the engineers have done some odd cost-benefit analysis and determined that they're going to provide us with an inadequate filtering product because of cost reduction.
... ugh ... I hate to spend $200 on something that isn't needed. The decision for additional filtering would be a no-brainer if we had forum reports of failed airguns due to moisture incursion *coupled* against a fill method. Or reports of moisture related failure at all. One would think the whole airgun tank/tube gas expansion during the shooting process and subsequent fill process as the pressures vary from 250 bar to 150 bar would be sufficient to adsorb any moisture and expel it during the shooting process.
All said, thank you all for the dialog and discussion, I'll keep reading this thread for sure.
Upvote 0