Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
I'm doing some analysis of stock water guns and I have a favor to ask those of you with large arsenals and some free time. Would you mind measuring the diameter of the nozzle of some of your stock water blasters? Calipers work well for larger nozzles. Carefully sticking progressively larger drill bits backwards (as to not cut the nozzle accidentally) into the nozzle until you find the largest size that fits works for smaller nozzles.
There are some blasters I'm more interested in than others. These are the SS 300, CPS 2000 (both Mks), and all of the 1998 CPS series.
Thanks in advance to anyone able to help.
There are some blasters I'm more interested in than others. These are the SS 300, CPS 2000 (both Mks), and all of the 1998 CPS series.
Thanks in advance to anyone able to help.
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
This sounds important. Unfortunately, I don't have calipers, so I guess I'll have to go find some.
FWIW, I've found that for a lot of blasters, 1x = 1mm. I'm not sure how often this is true though, nor how accurate it is.
FWIW, I've found that for a lot of blasters, 1x = 1mm. I'm not sure how often this is true though, nor how accurate it is.
- the oncoming storm
- Posts: 1407
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:10 pm
- Location: Knoxville Tn
- WWN League Team: Havoc
- Contact:
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
don't you have all of those blasters Ben ?
I know you used to.
I know you used to.
If you ever bother reading these, I worry for your mental sanity.
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
I never owned many stock water guns. I think the most I had was a CPS 1000 (broken pump handle), XP 150, CPS 2700 (multiple failures from experiments), CPS 3000 (no backpack), CPS 2100 (in bad condition due to a failed experiment), Arctic Blast, and a mk2 CPS 2000, though I could be mistaken. The CPS 2700 seems to have been thrown out and the Arctic Blast was given away. All of the remaining water guns are currently in storage, and are not accessible to me for the moment. Though I will have the opportunity to make my own measurements later this summer.
Regardless, it's worth checking if the nozzle diameters are consistent for the same water gun. A difference in nozzle diameter could explain much of the performance differences we see between mks.
Regardless, it's worth checking if the nozzle diameters are consistent for the same water gun. A difference in nozzle diameter could explain much of the performance differences we see between mks.
Which blasters do you find this rule works for? That should not hold true in general, but it sounds good for some blasters. The flow rate is a function of pressure, obstructions to the flow, and nozzle orifice diameter. Pressures vary quite a bit.CA99 wrote:FWIW, I've found that for a lot of blasters, 1x = 1mm. I'm not sure how often this is true though, nor how accurate it is.
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
Exactly, which is why that consistency across blasters is a bit odd. I think it primarily applies everything it's a Larami "X" designation on a nozzle selector, as opposed to our own approximations. The 1200's, 2100's, and 1000 I have all have the same nozzle orifice, which I'm pretty sure is also the same for the 2500's 5x; all 5mm. I'll have to remeasure since I'm recalling this from memory, but that's what I've found initially. I've noticed this across "1x" and "2x" nozzles as well; about 1mm and 2mm.
-
- Posts: 815
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:10 pm
- Location: Surrey, BC, Canada
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
I've got a couple of CPS blasters sitting around but no calipers. I can try to get you a rough measurement (in mm) if you like. I can't remember but I know that certain ones are a standard size (E.G. 20X ~ 3/8")
Heck just wait until tomorrow, er, Thursday. I have some free time then and I will go hunting for drill bits/calipers.
Heck just wait until tomorrow, er, Thursday. I have some free time then and I will go hunting for drill bits/calipers.
My friends call me Nader. My foes just run.
Photos relocated to: https://www.flickr.com/photos/151868511 ... 8741427445
I find 'em, I fix 'em.
Photos relocated to: https://www.flickr.com/photos/151868511 ... 8741427445
I find 'em, I fix 'em.
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
I so need to invest in a good pair of calipers for measuring things!
Unfortunately, most of my blasters that are of greater interest are in my deep storage and not easy to access. Right now, I can only readily access 2013 and 2014 water blaster models.
Unfortunately, most of my blasters that are of greater interest are in my deep storage and not easy to access. Right now, I can only readily access 2013 and 2014 water blaster models.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
-
- Posts: 3975
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: Charleston
- WWN League Team: Havoc
- Contact:
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
What blasters are you referring to? The N1 nozzle is 0.8mm. XP 70 and SS 100 mk2 (haven't measured an original) have 1.6mm (1/16") nozzles. According to Aquanexus the SS 50 has a nozzle size of 1.2mm (3/64" drill bit) and I measured XP 240 and 40 as having the same nozzle size, which also lines up with the measurements on Aquanexus.CA99 wrote:FWIW, I've found that for a lot of blasters, 1x = 1mm (1/32"). I'm not sure how often this is true though, nor how accurate it is.
Do you have the formula for flow rate? One of the things I'm looking at in the article is the output of blasters with the same size nozzle. I measured some as having the same output, others have different outputs, which could possibly be attributed to greater PC pressure, nozzle design, or a variety of other factors; and I think being able to look at the statistics will help us figure out how the other factors play a role.Ben wrote:Which blasters do you find this work for? That should not hold true in general, but it sounds good for some blasters. The flow rate is a function of pressure, obstructions to the flow, and nozzle orifice diameter. Pressures vary quite a bit.
https://hydrowar.wordpress.com/
SEAL wrote:If you ain't bloody and muddy by the end of the day, you went to a Nerf war.
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
That makes sense, and doing some searches, it seems isoaker suggested at one point that the original (?) X rating was based on nozzle diameter.CA99 wrote:Exactly, which is why that consistency across blasters is a bit odd. I think it primarily applies everything it's a Larami "X" designation on a nozzle selector, as opposed to our own approximations. The 1200's, 2100's, and 1000 I have all have the same nozzle orifice, which I'm pretty sure is also the same for the 2500's 5x; all 5mm. I'll have to remeasure since I'm recalling this from memory, but that's what I've found initially. I've noticed this across "1x" and "2x" nozzles as well; about 1mm and 2mm.
Sure, even a rough measurement would be helpful. I have another idea if you don't have calipers or drill bits. For larger nozzles, a ruler and a camera could also work but would be tedious. You could open the image in an editor and see how many pixels equals a mm on the ruler, measure the nozzle diameter in pixels, and then convert pixels to mm using the conversion factor you found.soakinader wrote:I've got a couple of CPS blasters sitting around but no calipers. I can try to get you a rough measurement (in mm) if you like. I can't remember but I know that certain ones are a standard size (E.G. 20X ~ 3/8")
Heck just wait until tomorrow, er, Thursday. I have some free time then and I will go hunting for drill bits/calipers.
I'd be curious to see what diameters some of the larger more recent models, e.g., the Gorgon, have if you have a means of measuring. Might be worth trying the camera trick I mentioned.isoaker wrote:Unfortunately, most of my blasters that are of greater interest are in my deep storage and not easy to access. Right now, I can only readily access 2013 and 2014 water blaster models.
I'll write you some brief notes about the formula. It needs some explanation and a small table of loss coefficient values.marauder wrote:Do you have the formula for flow rate? One of the things I'm looking at in the article is the output of blasters with the same size nozzle. I measured some as having the same output, others have different outputs, which could possibly be attributed to greater PC pressure, nozzle design, or a variety of other factors; and I think being able to look at the statistics will help us figure out how the other factors play a role.
- SEAL
- Posts: 2537
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:37 am
- Location: Charlotte, NC
- WWN League Team: Catskill Mountain SEALs
- Contact:
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
My 2000 (MK2) has a 0.3835 inch diameter nozzle. Though going 4 digits beyond the decimal point is a little unnecessary, so we can say it's roughly 2/5".
~Hotel Oscar Golf~
We probably won't be back, but the legacy lives on.
We probably won't be back, but the legacy lives on.
-
- Posts: 3975
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: Charleston
- WWN League Team: Havoc
- Contact:
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
Well, this is going to give away a lot of what was going into my article; but it's totally worth it. With all this work going into this I an write a better article, or you can, or we both could. Here's what I have:
0.8 mm / 1/32" / .034375"
SS 10, SS 20, S 25, XP 20, XP 220, SS 200 (smallest nozzle), Gorgon N1, Vindicator (smallest nozzle)
1.2 mm, 3/64" / .046875
XP 40, XP 240, SS 30, SS 50, SS 60, SS 200 (middle nozzle), Ultimate Explorer (smallest nozzle)
Notes: my SS 30 measurement is from 2 original models, Aquanexus measures 1.4 mm for the "new and improved" 1998 version
1.4 mm
Ultimate Explorer (2nd smallest)
1.6 mm / 1/16" / 0.0625
XP 70, XP 270, XP 110, Gorgon N3, SS 100 mk2, SS 200 (largest nozzle), Arctic Shock, Arctic Blast, Flash Flood, WWF Stone Cold, WWF Undertaker, Ultimate Explorer (middle nozzle), Vindicator (2nd smallest)
1.8 mm
SC 400, SC 500, SC 600, Charger N1, Ultimate Explorer (2nd largest)
Notes: Aquanexus measured 1.9 mm for the SC 500, I measured 1.8 mm. Charger N1 is 1mm larger than Gorgon N1.
2.0 mm / 5/64" / 0.078125
XP 55, XP 65, XP 75, XP 95, XP 105, XP 150, Ultimate Explorer (largest) Gorgon N5, Vindicator (2nd largest)
2.4 mm / 3/32" / 0.0945"
XP Pool Pumper Blaster, Splashzooka, Gorgon N7
3.5 mm / 9/64" / .140625"
Vindicator (largest
4.4 mm / 11/64" / 0.1719"
CPS 1200, CPS 2100, CPS 2500 (5x)
10.2mm
CPS 2000
Note: 10.2mm is basically 2/5" which is what SEAL got.
15 mm
Flash Flood, Arctic Blast
0.8 mm / 1/32" / .034375"
SS 10, SS 20, S 25, XP 20, XP 220, SS 200 (smallest nozzle), Gorgon N1, Vindicator (smallest nozzle)
1.2 mm, 3/64" / .046875
XP 40, XP 240, SS 30, SS 50, SS 60, SS 200 (middle nozzle), Ultimate Explorer (smallest nozzle)
Notes: my SS 30 measurement is from 2 original models, Aquanexus measures 1.4 mm for the "new and improved" 1998 version
1.4 mm
Ultimate Explorer (2nd smallest)
1.6 mm / 1/16" / 0.0625
XP 70, XP 270, XP 110, Gorgon N3, SS 100 mk2, SS 200 (largest nozzle), Arctic Shock, Arctic Blast, Flash Flood, WWF Stone Cold, WWF Undertaker, Ultimate Explorer (middle nozzle), Vindicator (2nd smallest)
1.8 mm
SC 400, SC 500, SC 600, Charger N1, Ultimate Explorer (2nd largest)
Notes: Aquanexus measured 1.9 mm for the SC 500, I measured 1.8 mm. Charger N1 is 1mm larger than Gorgon N1.
2.0 mm / 5/64" / 0.078125
XP 55, XP 65, XP 75, XP 95, XP 105, XP 150, Ultimate Explorer (largest) Gorgon N5, Vindicator (2nd largest)
2.4 mm / 3/32" / 0.0945"
XP Pool Pumper Blaster, Splashzooka, Gorgon N7
3.5 mm / 9/64" / .140625"
Vindicator (largest
4.4 mm / 11/64" / 0.1719"
CPS 1200, CPS 2100, CPS 2500 (5x)
10.2mm
CPS 2000
Note: 10.2mm is basically 2/5" which is what SEAL got.
15 mm
Flash Flood, Arctic Blast
https://hydrowar.wordpress.com/
SEAL wrote:If you ain't bloody and muddy by the end of the day, you went to a Nerf war.
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
Thanks, these are great measurements, marauder and SEAL.
marauder, I'd be happy to help you with your article. PM me with what you intended to cover and I'll see how I can contribute. (I'm in the middle of a move right now, so I might be a little slow.)
I've found a few things from the little analysis I've been able to do so far:
1) The outputs people report are too low for my use, due to drop off and difficulty measuring the time precisely. I need maximum output. What almost everyone provides is average output over the entire shot. As an example, using data from iSoaker.com, the CPS 2000 quite literally breaks the laws of physics. 15 m is above the maximum range a dragless projectile would get going at the same velocity! I've adjusted the output with the shot time I calculated by counting frames from this YouTube video and now have a reasonable result.
2) Ranges for some water guns seem exaggerated, and surely this contributes a bit to some guns seeming to break the laws of physics. For example, back in 2005 I did many tests with Drenchenator's SS 300 and measured last drop range (which is already optimistic) and found that the average range over 33 measurements was 47 feet. This is below what I see other people report from their SS 300s (50 feet or more). This particular SS 300 could be a dud, but I'm pretty sure that if people did more tests, they'd find lower ranges for their blasters in general.
I'll see about taking some more rigorous measurements of water blasters I have access to later this summer. In the mean time, I'd still appreciate any other diameter measurements anyone could provide.
marauder, I'd be happy to help you with your article. PM me with what you intended to cover and I'll see how I can contribute. (I'm in the middle of a move right now, so I might be a little slow.)
I've found a few things from the little analysis I've been able to do so far:
1) The outputs people report are too low for my use, due to drop off and difficulty measuring the time precisely. I need maximum output. What almost everyone provides is average output over the entire shot. As an example, using data from iSoaker.com, the CPS 2000 quite literally breaks the laws of physics. 15 m is above the maximum range a dragless projectile would get going at the same velocity! I've adjusted the output with the shot time I calculated by counting frames from this YouTube video and now have a reasonable result.
2) Ranges for some water guns seem exaggerated, and surely this contributes a bit to some guns seeming to break the laws of physics. For example, back in 2005 I did many tests with Drenchenator's SS 300 and measured last drop range (which is already optimistic) and found that the average range over 33 measurements was 47 feet. This is below what I see other people report from their SS 300s (50 feet or more). This particular SS 300 could be a dud, but I'm pretty sure that if people did more tests, they'd find lower ranges for their blasters in general.
I'll see about taking some more rigorous measurements of water blasters I have access to later this summer. In the mean time, I'd still appreciate any other diameter measurements anyone could provide.
- the oncoming storm
- Posts: 1407
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:10 pm
- Location: Knoxville Tn
- WWN League Team: Havoc
- Contact:
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
I have tested my 300 quite a but and while range is only on par with 1200's if you have any noticeable wind, it can hit 55' to the end of puddle with only 4" of elevation drop on the terrain on a calm day
Last edited by the oncoming storm on Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If you ever bother reading these, I worry for your mental sanity.
-
- Posts: 3975
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: Charleston
- WWN League Team: Havoc
- Contact:
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
Hmm. I have tested 2 300s and they both hit 50 ft with no back wind. I did have to find the right balance between air and water in the PC however to get this. Prior to that I was getting 42 feet. You also have to make sure you're shooting exactly 45 degrees. 47 feet is reasonable. I got 47 feet on my XP Pool Pumper when I changed the nozzle into a 10mm? brass conical nozzle. The stock nozzle was 2.4mm and the stock range is in the upper 30s.
https://hydrowar.wordpress.com/
SEAL wrote:If you ain't bloody and muddy by the end of the day, you went to a Nerf war.
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
How many shots did you all make? 54 feet was the maximum from my own tests, so it seems that even the SS 300 I used could get that, but it's not typical.
Also, as a side note, 45 degrees is not the ideal firing angle in general. It's the ideal firing angle if the nozzle is coming out of the ground (i.e., there is no starting height) and there's no drag, but neither holds true in reality. I've seen test results that indicated the ideal firing angle for a fire hose is about 30 to 36 degrees, and it seems to depend on the nozzle diameter in addition to the other factors I mentioned.
Also, as a side note, 45 degrees is not the ideal firing angle in general. It's the ideal firing angle if the nozzle is coming out of the ground (i.e., there is no starting height) and there's no drag, but neither holds true in reality. I've seen test results that indicated the ideal firing angle for a fire hose is about 30 to 36 degrees, and it seems to depend on the nozzle diameter in addition to the other factors I mentioned.
-
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:36 am
- Location: Connecticut
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
CPS 1200 (yellow/purple)
Main Nozzle: 4.30mm
CPS 2100 (free pump cap)
Main Nozzle: 4.30mm
CPS 2100 (fixed pump cap)
Main Nozzle: 4.70mm
CPS 3000
5x Nozzle: 1/16"<nozzle<13/64"
10x Nozzle: 1/4"<nozzle<5/16"
20x Nozzle: 3/8" exactly
MD 3000:
Main Nozzle: 1.25mm
XP 240:
Main Nozzle: <1/16"
Hydrocannon:
Main Nozzle: 15.90mm
Flash Flood:
Main Nozzle: 1.90mm
Large Nozzle: 16.50mm
Artic Blast:
Main Nozzle: 1.50mm
Large Nozzle: 1.70mm
Monster X:
5x Nozzle: 3.26mm
8.5x Nozzle: 4.25mm
11.5x Nozzle: 5.60mm
Sorry for the variation between standard and metric. I used metric calipers for most, but was limited by the size/design of some guns to using standard drill bit estimates.
Main Nozzle: 4.30mm
CPS 2100 (free pump cap)
Main Nozzle: 4.30mm
CPS 2100 (fixed pump cap)
Main Nozzle: 4.70mm
CPS 3000
5x Nozzle: 1/16"<nozzle<13/64"
10x Nozzle: 1/4"<nozzle<5/16"
20x Nozzle: 3/8" exactly
MD 3000:
Main Nozzle: 1.25mm
XP 240:
Main Nozzle: <1/16"
Hydrocannon:
Main Nozzle: 15.90mm
Flash Flood:
Main Nozzle: 1.90mm
Large Nozzle: 16.50mm
Artic Blast:
Main Nozzle: 1.50mm
Large Nozzle: 1.70mm
Monster X:
5x Nozzle: 3.26mm
8.5x Nozzle: 4.25mm
11.5x Nozzle: 5.60mm
Sorry for the variation between standard and metric. I used metric calipers for most, but was limited by the size/design of some guns to using standard drill bit estimates.
Last edited by wetmonkey442 on Sat May 17, 2014 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Join the fight! Support water warfare in your area today!
-
- Posts: 3975
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: Charleston
- WWN League Team: Havoc
- Contact:
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
I'm going to convert some of these to mm ^
XP 240
less than 1.6 mm
CPS 3000
5x between 1.6 mm and 5.2 mm
10x between 6.4 mm and 8 mm
20x 3.2 mm
So the 20x nozzle was smaller than the 10x nozzle? Fascinating. Perhaps they were mislabeled.
Also, here's a look at some nozzles of the same size so far:
Monster X: 3.26 mm
CPS 1200 (yellow/purple): 4.30mm
CPS 2100 (free pump cap): 4.30mm
CPS 1200 (CA99 measurement): 4.4mm
CPS 2100 (CA99 measurement): 4.4mm
CPS 2500 (CA99 measurement): 4.4mm
CPS 2100 (fixed pump cap): 4.70mm
CPS 3000 between 1.6 mm and 5.2 mm
XP 240
less than 1.6 mm
CPS 3000
5x between 1.6 mm and 5.2 mm
10x between 6.4 mm and 8 mm
20x 3.2 mm
So the 20x nozzle was smaller than the 10x nozzle? Fascinating. Perhaps they were mislabeled.
Also, here's a look at some nozzles of the same size so far:
Monster X: 3.26 mm
CPS 1200 (yellow/purple): 4.30mm
CPS 2100 (free pump cap): 4.30mm
CPS 1200 (CA99 measurement): 4.4mm
CPS 2100 (CA99 measurement): 4.4mm
CPS 2500 (CA99 measurement): 4.4mm
CPS 2100 (fixed pump cap): 4.70mm
CPS 3000 between 1.6 mm and 5.2 mm
My standard is to take 10 shots. I tested 2 different 300s at least twice each, so that would be 2(2 x 10) or 40 shots total. Your observations on firing angle are pretty interesting. Duxburian is the only one who actually tests with an angle, so I have no clue if I was actually shooting at 45 degrees or not. I just take test shots until I think I've found the right angle to hold it at. I was consistently getting between 48 and 52 feet with a majority of the shots being in the 49.5 to 51 ft range. I never shot further than 52 except with a back wind and I never shot less than 48 except with a cross wind, but those days were discounted/not included in the 2 sets that I took.Ben wrote:How many shots did you all make? 54 feet was the maximum from my own tests, so it seems that even the SS 300 I used could get that, but it's not typical.
Also, as a side note, 45 degrees is not the ideal firing angle in general. It's the ideal firing angle if the nozzle is coming out of the ground (i.e., there is no starting height) and there's no drag, but neither holds true in reality. I've seen test results that indicated the ideal firing angle for a fire hose is about 30 to 36 degrees, and it seems to depend on the nozzle diameter in addition to the other factors I mentioned.
https://hydrowar.wordpress.com/
SEAL wrote:If you ain't bloody and muddy by the end of the day, you went to a Nerf war.
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
Thanks for the measurements, wetmonkey! It's interesting to see some differences between different CPS 2100s. Was the CPS 3000 20X diameter a typo?
I've realized how I did tests in the past was not good. For the Supercannon II tests, I actually did perhaps 15 shots, but I only reported the longest range shot, which I now think was pretty misleading. I'm planning some tests now, and I have a 4x4 matrix of different diameters and flow rates to test (or, in a more technical sense, different Weber and Froude numbers). I'm not sure how many shots I'll do for each, but I imagine the limiting factor will be my free time. 5 should be reasonable. I might have to reduce it to 3x3 to get more shots per configuration.
25 deg.: 10.5 m
30 deg.: 10.6 m
35 deg.: 10.4 m
40 deg.: 10.2 m
45 deg.: 9.8 m
Seems that there's a range of angles where your range will be basically the same. Looks like about 30 degrees is the best here, but you don't lose much by going over or under. So precisely measuring angle is not so necessary as long as you're in the ballpark.
This model has been calibrated for fire hose streams and seems to underpredict water blaster range, so don't take these numbers as realistic. It really only gets trends right.
(For the sake of full disclosure, I'm writing a research paper on the theory of water stream range as applied to fire protection. I have developed a simple theoretical model that captures most of the relevant physics and can be fudged to match data well, but by its nature, it can't be very accurate for predictions. This model treats the stream breakup as happening instantaneously, which is obviously false when you look at a real stream. Despite that shortcoming, it fits the data surprisingly well. I plan to develop a more complex simulation to account for many things I've neglected. That simulator should be pretty accurate for predicting range. No idea when/if that'll happen, though, as I need to learn quite a bit more before getting there and I have no funding for this project.)
This sounds pretty good.marauder wrote:My standard is to take 10 shots. I tested 2 different 300s at least twice each, so that would be 2(2 x 10) or 40 shots total.
I've realized how I did tests in the past was not good. For the Supercannon II tests, I actually did perhaps 15 shots, but I only reported the longest range shot, which I now think was pretty misleading. I'm planning some tests now, and I have a 4x4 matrix of different diameters and flow rates to test (or, in a more technical sense, different Weber and Froude numbers). I'm not sure how many shots I'll do for each, but I imagine the limiting factor will be my free time. 5 should be reasonable. I might have to reduce it to 3x3 to get more shots per configuration.
To be rigorous, it's best to measure the angle, but doing the math, it doesn't seem that the firing angle makes much of a difference in my current simple theoretical model of water stream range. I've set up an example water gun with a flow rate of 210 mL/s, nozzle diameter of 3.5 mm, and various angles:marauder wrote:Your observations on firing angle are pretty interesting. Duxburian is the only one who actually tests with an angle, so I have no clue if I was actually shooting at 45 degrees or not. I just take test shots until I think I've found the right angle to hold it at. I was consistently getting between 48 and 52 feet with a majority of the shots being in the 49.5 to 51 ft range. I never shot further than 52 except with a back wind and I never shot less than 48 except with a cross wind, but those days were discounted/not included in the 2 sets that I took.
25 deg.: 10.5 m
30 deg.: 10.6 m
35 deg.: 10.4 m
40 deg.: 10.2 m
45 deg.: 9.8 m
Seems that there's a range of angles where your range will be basically the same. Looks like about 30 degrees is the best here, but you don't lose much by going over or under. So precisely measuring angle is not so necessary as long as you're in the ballpark.
This model has been calibrated for fire hose streams and seems to underpredict water blaster range, so don't take these numbers as realistic. It really only gets trends right.
(For the sake of full disclosure, I'm writing a research paper on the theory of water stream range as applied to fire protection. I have developed a simple theoretical model that captures most of the relevant physics and can be fudged to match data well, but by its nature, it can't be very accurate for predictions. This model treats the stream breakup as happening instantaneously, which is obviously false when you look at a real stream. Despite that shortcoming, it fits the data surprisingly well. I plan to develop a more complex simulation to account for many things I've neglected. That simulator should be pretty accurate for predicting range. No idea when/if that'll happen, though, as I need to learn quite a bit more before getting there and I have no funding for this project.)
-
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:36 am
- Location: Connecticut
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
Yes it was, I corrected it.
Join the fight! Support water warfare in your area today!
-
- Posts: 3975
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:29 pm
- Location: Charleston
- WWN League Team: Havoc
- Contact:
Re: Stock water blaster nozzle diameters
I stumbled across some old information that should prove quite insightful. Ever since the Super Charger 600 first came out people have been saying there is a less powerful mark and a more powerful mark. Such claims can be seen in reviews on SSC, Aquanexus, and my own site. I've done more testing on 600s than almost any gun, but never put the facts together until now. I have written down that nozzle size for the SC 600 with black detailing is 1.4 mm. Later I had written down, and reconfirmed last spring that 600s with grey detailing have a nozzle size of 1.8 mm. When I compare this to range and output data over the years there's a clear correlation between nozzle size and performance and it's even more convincing when compared to data gathered on the WWF series. For all this time we thought that the mk1s with black detailing were weaker powered or had inferior pressure chambers, but really it was just a matter of nozzle size:
SC 600 mk2
nozzle size: 1.8 mm
average max range: 37 ft
number of guns tested - 6
SC 600 mk1
nozzle size: 1.4 mm
average max range: 33 ft
number of guns tested - 2
WWF Series
nozzle size: 1.4 mm
average max range: 32 ft
number of guns tested - 3 Stone Colds, 1 Undertaker
Note, when I drilled the Stone Cold's nozzle out to 2.4 mm the range increased to 36 ft. The stream was very turbulent due to a rough nozzle mod, so there is reason to believe that a better job could have pushed the range even further. This could also be the problem with 500s, as the version erroneously labeled "air pressure" aren't as powerful. With that being said, there may be something else involved with 500s, since mk1s tend to have short shot time unless you fix the bladder by charging via QFD several times.
*edit 2015*
XP 310
Open (no nozzle) = 7/32" or 5.56 mm, pretty close to 8.5x nozzle
Largest nozzle: 5/64" or 1.98 mm
Second Largest: 1/16" or 1.6 mm
Third Largest: ?
Smallest: same as N1
SC 600 mk2
nozzle size: 1.8 mm
average max range: 37 ft
number of guns tested - 6
SC 600 mk1
nozzle size: 1.4 mm
average max range: 33 ft
number of guns tested - 2
WWF Series
nozzle size: 1.4 mm
average max range: 32 ft
number of guns tested - 3 Stone Colds, 1 Undertaker
Note, when I drilled the Stone Cold's nozzle out to 2.4 mm the range increased to 36 ft. The stream was very turbulent due to a rough nozzle mod, so there is reason to believe that a better job could have pushed the range even further. This could also be the problem with 500s, as the version erroneously labeled "air pressure" aren't as powerful. With that being said, there may be something else involved with 500s, since mk1s tend to have short shot time unless you fix the bladder by charging via QFD several times.
*edit 2015*
XP 310
Open (no nozzle) = 7/32" or 5.56 mm, pretty close to 8.5x nozzle
Largest nozzle: 5/64" or 1.98 mm
Second Largest: 1/16" or 1.6 mm
Third Largest: ?
Smallest: same as N1
https://hydrowar.wordpress.com/
SEAL wrote:If you ain't bloody and muddy by the end of the day, you went to a Nerf war.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 67 guests