Well, due to cost, people stopped filling air tanks with N2 a while ago.

As for pressure/output, it's the regulator. The regulator will put out 400ish or so PSI on a low pressure output reg, and about 800 PSI or so on a high pressure output reg. Tippmanns need high pressure to operate, so you will need a tank with a high pressure output regulator.

As for size, you'd want a 68ci for best all around performance, for a 45ci won't get you that many shots. On a 68ci, expect about 900 to 1000 shots. I'm not sure of the specific number.

Let me see if I can get it all succinctly. The atmosphere you breath is roughly 78.1% nitrogen and 20.9% oxygen and 0.9% argon. And all the rest of the gasses combined (carbon dioxide, methane, and all the inert gasses) about 0.1%  (yes, one tenth of one percent INCLUDING CO2...still believe in CO2 causing global warming...another time).

Compressed nitrogen costs more because it is refined to be mostly pure. Since there is no advantage to nitrogen over air in your HPA tank, most places no longer fill nitrogen. Compressed air (atmosphere) works just, read that exactly, as well.

As for HPA tanks, there are three types available. All of the tanks themselves are high pressure...meaning they are presurrized at 3000 to 5000 psi, depending on their rating. But, their out put pressure is controlled by a primary regulator built into the tank valve.

You can obtain tanks with "high pressure" out put at about 850 psi. "Low pressure" out put at bout 450 psi. And, there are also available HPA tanks with adjustable out put allowing customization for a particular marker.

You can fill your HPA tank with just about any high pressure gas available to you (except oxygen, any trace contamination such as marker oil in the tank will explode in the presents of high pressure pure oxygen...combustibal gasses should also be avoided), but air is the easiest and least expensive to obtain.

Could the use of CO2 in paintball markers be contributing to global warming?

Black_Shadow wrote: BTW global warming is real. the co2 levels in th atmopshere will exceed 300 parts per million in the next year or 2, and everytime throughout earths history that the co2 level got above 100 parts per million the ice ages ended. cant wait for this summer eh? you guys might not notice global warming much, but where i live in canada we normally get about 8 to 10 feet worth of snow throughout the entire winter, this year, and last we got a total of the 2 winters of about 6 feet.

If you would really like to know the scientific facts about CO2 and Global warming then I'd recommend a book written by the scientists who have actually published the real data...not the ones looking for another grant or a non-scientist like Al Gore. The book is titled: Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years. Written by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. If you can wait a while till I finish my copy, I'll send it to you. Or if you are legitimately interested it is available on Amazon for $75 hard cover and, got my copy, in soft cover for about $15. Realize, this is a text book covering the document-able data not a movie script, but it is very readable, partly because it covers the history of the planet.

Remember that once it was the "consensus" of the scientific community that the sun orbited the earth. It was once a scientific "consensus" that if you went far enough to sea, you fell off the edge of the earth. A "consensus" is not science.

Variations in snowfall or summertime high temperatures are normal. We have had colder and warmer weather. I guess if you check with the people in the mid-west or the north-eastern US this year, they now believe in global cooling.

Heck, if you really are interested in the scientific fact supported by 250,000 year old ice core drilling's from both Antarctica, on the south, and Greenland, on the north (showing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and isotopes of oxygen and ACTUAL temperature fluctuations), I will buy an additional copy and send it to you...at absolutely no cost to you.

Bruce - 

I would take anything Dennis Avery says with a giant grain of salt.  He is not a climatologist, or anything close to it.  He is basically an agricultural lobbyist, who is now expanding into other areas.  There have been a variety of serious allegations against him regarding mis-statement of facts and research.

The 1,500 year curve (and the related Milankovitch cycles) is old news - it's not like he discovered something new and exciting.  This is well known, and factored into current estimates of causes of climate change.  Avery is incorrectly selling this like some giant secret that the scientific community is sweeping under the rug.

And this is incorrect:

Bruce wrote: Remember that once it was the "consensus" of the scientific community that the sun orbited the earth. It was once a scientific "consensus" that if you went far enough to sea, you fell off the edge of the earth.

Those were not scientific consensuses - those were PRE-scientific religious/superstitious beliefs.  As soon as actual science showed up, both of those were quickly dismissed as not based in fact.

While you are correct that truth does not flow from consensus, science does flow from observed facts.  Incorrect conclusions may occasionally be drawn, but those are corrected as new facts are incorporated into existing theory.

I am not a climatologist either - but as between Dennis Avery and most climatologists out there, I am going to go with most climatologists.

Scientific research has produced facts, not conjecture. Regardless of the esteem in which you hold the messenger, the message is clear that CO2 levels lag behind global warming...not the other way around. Since you are up on the controversy you must have noted that in the original UN report full half of the scientists who participated in the research and compilation of the data said that the data did not indicate the conclusion that was publicized.

Yes, well documented scientific data is ignored all the time. And there is that most recent report from the UN that said that they are 90% sure that global warming is happening but that "We can actually do nothing about it!"

CO2 is a nutrient, not a pollutant. Global warming is not "Runaway" it is a normal cycle. At one time, recorded history, vineyards abounded at much more northern latitudes than today. Of course I believe in global warming, what do you think ended the last Ice Age?

Antarctica is not melting, the snow pack is actually increasing. The only part which shows melting is the peninsula extending towards the tip of S. America. If it instantly became warm enough to melt all the ice at the south pole the melting process would take 7000 years. Worst-case scenario computer modeling show average global temps as climbing   at about about 2.5 degrees a century. Lets see, ice melts a lot faster at 37.5 degrees below zero than it does at 40 degrees below zero.

Gee, scientific research is now showing planetary temperature increases on ALL of the planets in the solar system. Could it be cyclical variations in solar output? Naw, got to be those secret missions of Haliburton to drill for oil and burn hydrocarbons on those planets.

Oh, I do have to point that one might see today "Man Caused Global Warming" fanatics as equally repressive as any religious fervor in the past...with calls for firings and decertification of any climatologists who dare to question the consensus! Labeling those who question the consensus as "deniers." With anger to the point  one must conclude that "deniers" is just a code word for "blasphemy."

Black_Shadow wrote: didn't mean to start a flame war, and BTW if the government started taking a carbon tax, believe me that wouldnt happen in canada, were under a minority govt right now, that would be politcal suicide. I never said global warming is out of control, and i completely agree it is part of a natural cycle. You point of view is almost the exact one i have. i was simply stating that this time it will be warmer than the other cycles since our comsumption of fossil fuels in the past century has greatly increased the amount of co2 in the atmosphere.. sorry for not completely explaining my POV.

I didn't see it as a flame war, just a fact filled discussion. Again the levels of CO2 appear the have nothing to do with causation, they are a result...so the minuscule amounts of planetary CO2 produced by man, if they were really part of the causation equation, would have no detectable impact on average temps. We have daily release of CO2 from causes such as volcanic activity that exceed mankind's production since the beginning of the industrial age.

Bruce A. Frank wrote: I didn't see it as a flame war, just a fact filled discussion.

Certainly true.

Again the levels of CO2 appear the have nothing to do with causation, they are a result...so the minuscule amounts of planetary CO2 produced by man, if they were really part of the causation equation, would have no detectable impact on average temps. We have daily release of CO2 from causes such as volcanic activity that exceed mankind's production since the beginning of the industrial age.

I believe you may be misinformed, Bruce.  Sadly, the online information about this highly complex subject are not what one might wish for, but there is some information available.

This site:  http://www.realclimate.org/ - www.realclimate.org isn't perfect or complete, but the information appears to be provided by actual scientists within the relevant fields.

Some relevant articles:

Regarding CO2/Temperature causal relationships:  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in -ice-cores/

Regarding human causes of increased CO2 levels:  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/ - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do -we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-ac tivities-updated/

Regarding volcanic emissions of CO2:  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/#more-306 - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/curren t-volcanic-activity-and-climate/#more-306

Specifically addressing Avery/Singer:  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/ - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery- and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/

And there is much, much more.

Blah blah blah. I am Jesus.

hybrid-sniper wrote: Blah blah blah. I am Jesus.

No, you are not.  Jesus lives in Houston.

I would encourage everyone to go to http://www.realclimate.org/ - www.realclimate.org  and read all the referenced articles. Then note the less than subtle contradictions. Facts are contradicted with theory and pseudo-deductive analysis.

I did find it most interesting that the seas take 800 years to give up a fraction of the atmospheric CO2 during cyclical warming. But, the sulfur compounds that blocked sunlight and caused a half a degree of equatorial cooling for a couple of years (from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo) caused the oceans to cool enough to absorb CO2 enough to document an atmospheric concentration reduction.

There are equal numbers of expert-in-the-field scientists who adamantly disagree with the myth of man caused or influenced global warming.

While I haven't been reading as much as I should, I hope you can point towards some particular contradictions that bothered you, Bruce, so I can focus my efforts accordingly.

Glad you took the time to check it out.

One was that a half of degree of air temperature cooling could bring about a virtually instantaneous reduction in global CO2...when the seas, as stated in supporting articles on the site, cannot react that quickly.

I do recommend reading the book I referenced initially.

Now I am going to revert to mundane paintball stuff. I actively engage in these discussions in other groups which provides more than enough blood pressure raising interaction. I should have not opened this can of worms here as, unlike such interesting debates as rifled barrel accuracy or Flatline vs. Apex function, it is unresolvable. I can only suggest that one look at motivation (Federal grants and such) on BOTH sides for either the perpetuation or debunking of man caused global warming. And keep in mind that computer models are not fact and that the same data fed with ever so slightly different parameters can, with equal assuredness, predict a descent into global cooling.

pattison wrote: Forget al gore, he has an obvious agenda. He helps promote environmental responsibility the way potheads promote legalization. Look at the IPCC report. Acually, try to find the "summary report" for policymakers, it is slightly dumbed down to the level a non-climatologist can understand. The IPCC _seems_ to be fairly politically neutral, as far as i can tell, it was formed by the UN. Nothing predicts apocalypse, but there is nothing good in there. Edit: my mistake, the report is actually on the front page of realclimate

And that is the specific report on which fully half of those who participated in its creation  adamantly disagreed with the published conclusions. The dissenting scientists accused those who edited and published the paper of selectively ignoring and omitting data, that was included in and a significant part of the research draft, which contradicted a politically driven agenda promoting human caused global warming.

(I gotta quit coming back to this!)

Edit: Additional:

Be aware that the UN has publicly stated that they wish to impose a direct income tax on citizens of the world regardless of sovereignty or nationality. They have also stated that CO2 "emissions"  can only be controlled by this direct tax (a carbon tax).

If you have any consideration that the UN has any other motive than graft and corruption then you really haven't been paying attention to the "oil for food" program in Iraq and the "food for sex" corruption of aid to Africa incidents (among hundreds of other indications of corruption).

The UN has a vested interest in creating supporting documentation to justify direct taxes.