Stock water blaster maximum range testing

[isoaker]

In the Stock water blaster nozzle diameters thread, it was noted by some that maximum range of a stream does not necessarily mean that of a stream from a blaster angled upwards at 45-degree to horizontal. This observation could use additional testing, but is also explainable by the fact that a greater angle increases the flight path of a stream, increasing its likelihood of break-up and consequently reduced range.

Moreover, the thought that different nozzles of different blasters may achieve their best performance at different angles from one another was also raised.

From a practical sense, us water blaster Users ultimately want to know how far can a water blaster shoot at a given setting and, of course, how that distance was achieved.

While there's no way I plan on going through and re-testing my entire collection, I do plan on the following:
- acquire tools for measuring angles from horizontal accurately as well as for measuring nozzle diameters
- redo some range testing on newer stock water blasters at various angles in 5 degree increments. I'm presently considering testing from 20 degrees to 50 degrees (20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50); for each angle, I'd want to take 5 shots - that's 35 shots per nozzle
- I'm still torn about whether to measure to the last drop versus approximated majority of area hit
- report findings from the tests afterwards and adjust the phrasing of how maximum range is reported on iSoaker.com

If anyone has any additional suggestions or would also like to do some testing and share their findings, the more the merrier!

[DX]

An angle finder costs $5 at Harbor Freight ($30 for a digital angle finder) and digital calipers cost $15 there. I went with the cheap angle finder because it's good enough, but with calipers you definitely want to go digital.

The last puddle definition itself is not consistent from soaker to soaker. Some soakers have a very well-defined last puddle, while others with less output may have a last puddle that really consists of 3 drops. With CPS 2000s, the last drop is often in the last puddle, and with Scatterblasts, there is no last puddle or any puddle for that matter, where to measure is arbitrary. While last drop range is not useful in battle, it does have the benefit of being universally easy to measure vs trying to determine what really is the last "puddle". I'm not sure how useful last puddle is in battle, either. If your last puddle consists of about 5 not-very-laminar drops, can you really hit the enemy with that? Some soakers have a core puddle that can be measured and the end of that will soak someone, but only larger outputs and non-turbulent streams exhibit a core puddle. Where to measure seems easy, but it's definitely a problem.

I've also noticed (anecdotally, no known basis in fact) that CPS soakers tend to "warm up" as you fire them, the first few shots are not that great, but then the next few shots get into its max range. If all this is not bad enough, then you have AP soakers where the air/water mix and pre-pumping can have an effect on its range anywhere from extreme (Gorgon) to virtually none (SS 300). And then, of course, there are PR soakers, where it matters how much you fill them.

The best way to handle these variables would be to agree as a community on standards for them, like how much to pre-pump and how much water a PR should have, etc. Problem is, we severely lack data about pre-pumping and the such.

[soakinader]

OK, so if I were to go crazy about measuring these things, here are some factors I would consider as far as air resistance:
-Output, as it has been mentioned, ranges widely. The amount of water being pushed out.
-Stream diameter is somewhat independent of output and velocity...
-Stream velocity has a correlation with output rate. This is another variable to consider for any hardcore calculations.
-Stream stability. How fast the water goes and how smooth/turbulent the stream is.
-Nozzle structure. This has a direct impact on the stream, although we still don't know enough about fluid dynamics to determine which design is ideal, we do know which guns have different designs.

As far as testing goes, I wouldn't trust puddles or droplets. If I had a full-mythbusters budget, I would have a camera at the "landing site" to record the stream as it hits the ground.

More importantly, I would use strips of tape to mark every single foot and half foot to ensure that the shots are going in a straight line and that I can accurately measure the distance even by myself.
Having an observer walking parallel to the testing strip would be ideal, but with clear range markings (and/or a video camera) it should be simple to get from broad 5 foot approximations down to 1 foot/ 1/2 foot measurements.
So having a large strip of tape with large numbers every 5 feet (20/25/30/35/40/45/50/55), medium tape every foot in between marked visibly, and smaller pieces every 1/2 foot.

As far as finding the perfect angle, it is going to vary from gun to gun widely. Some guns that will need to be tested:
Hydro Power models like Tiger Shark, Blazer, Orca. These post a small difficulty as they have a known power spike when fully pressurized that gives them a brief increase in range.
CPS spherical models like 1000, 1200, 1500. These push out similar sized streams to some Hydro Power models; however have much larger apertures and I have measured some of them to have similar range/different output, as well as greater range/similar output.
CPS cylindrical models offer massive output and behave differently in flight from other guns. Some models have smoother, farther reaching streams while other are more turbulent; this is another factor!
Air pressure models. I still have trouble getting 50 foot ranges out of my SS300; so when measuring Air Pressure it could vary widely simple due to small variations in their pump/OPRV/ etc etc.

Note: Models like the Hydro Cannon/Flash Flood/Arctic Blaster have a very short shot time and a non-existent stream. I would imagine these will be statistical outliers, and will probably not fit any models well, so their value in testing may be minimal.

It's times like these I wish some of you guys lived nearby. If you wanted to borrow some guns for testing, I would be all like "Sure, No Problem". If I had some help I could test dozens of guns at once in a few hours.

[isoaker]

In light of the above considerations, my current thoughts are to begin with the following:
Pressurized Reservoir Blasters:
- should be filled between 2/3 and 3/4 full and fully pumped until PRV kicks in
Bladder-Based Blasters:
- should be primed (full chamber fired) 5 times before range testing

Range Testing:
- begin only with stream settings and setting that produce an easily identified hit area; still need to come to an agreement which part of the end puddle to measure to

Separate air pressure chamber blasters:
- I would like to see how these perform with no pre-charging versus full pre-charging (i.e. pre-pumping with air until no significant amount of additional air is being pushed into the PC by the pump); I presently use the full pre-charging method, but never spent additional time to see whether I could see the difference in initial range achieved (though overall stream performance is also affected by pre-charging).

For sake of this thread, I'm most interested in how angle affects range and whether there is a different angle than 45-degrees which will generally yield better range results even though it may not apply to every blaster or blaster setting.

[marauder]

I always measure to point of impact, not last drop.

The best way to handle these variables would be to agree as a community on standards for them, like how much to pre-pump and how much water a PR should have, etc. Problem is, we severely lack data about pre-pumping and the such.

I actually have a little bit of data on how prepumping affects PR range, but it is only for a few different models. If I had a better place to test plus better equipment I'd be able to test its effects on shot time, output, etc. as well.

[the oncoming storm]

I will try to keep this as simple as I can

Angle test is to be done in 5 degree incraments until raising it any more drops the range.
Range testing is done to the end of the main puddle (and only tested if the nozzle can make a puddle, if it can't than we call the nozzle totally ineffective)
AP soaker are to get as many air pre-pumps as they can take of water without any pre charging
PR's are to be filled 3/4 and pumped till OPRV kicks in

[the oncoming storm]

It just cured too me that their are two kinds of range

Maximum range and Standoff range

Maximum range is just that, a measure of how far a stream will travel from the nozzle when shot with 0 wind and on level ground.
For example DX's 2000# 5 and my 300 "Leviathan" both have been tested and conformed by their wielders to have a maximum range of 55'


Standoff range is how far from a target a USER can stand back from a target and still be able to range it. this is majorly affected by wind, terrain, and any-kind of overhead cover which limits arcing shots and less noticeably blaster length and ergonomics. While my 300 and DX's 2000# 5 have the same maximum range, DX's 2000 has a longer standoff range due to a thicker less vulnerable stream, better ergonomics which allow for one handed use and a longer overall blaster. Under identical circumstances DX's 2000 will always have a standoff range of 3' more than my 300

(using Marauders numbers that a gun is unable to make a kill on a stationary target 3' before the end of the puddle that was measured in range tests)

[soakinader]

I always measure to point of impact, not last drop.

I agree here completely.

[isoaker]

I always measure to point of impact, not last drop.

I agree here completely.

This is easy to say, but what does it mean? When a stream breaks up and lands as a spread of droplets at the end, where is the point of impact?

Moreover, the other thing that is not defined is nozzle position/starting point. When I do range measurements, I try to have the nozzle as close to the 0 mark as possible as opposed to having my feet at the 0 mark. Height off the ground will also affect range, though the likely amount of variation between our user based is probably within plus-or-minus 30cm (1'). What is unclear to me at this point is how much of a difference the added or lost height added to the range of the stream.

[marauder]

When I test I have the nozzle at the 0 mark as well. User height doesn't affect range as much as you'd think. I tested a few guns from (nozzle at) ground, hip, shoulder, and eye level (I'm 6'1). Differences between max range at shoulder and eye level was minimal. It was a few inches, 6 at most. The difference between shoulder and hip was somewhat more pronounced, being in the 4" to a 12" range. Dropping from hip level to ground made a huge difference. Range decreased by between a foot and five feet, depending upon what gun I was using. FWIW I only tested the Arctic Blast, 1500, and 600; so while I can't say with 100% certainty that this behavior would also apply to other soakers I feel fairly confident that it would at least be similar. What I concluded was that adults, or at least men, should not have any real advantage over other men in terms of range, depending upon how tall they are. At 6'1 I may be getting only about 3" advantage over someone who is 5'9, which is so small that factors such as direction of wind (even at very low mph), foliage, and movement by the 2 players, will most definitely negate. However, if you are fighting an 8 year old your height will probably help you out some.

Also, here's a little more about the concept of maximum effective range. When I list ranges I list the distance the stream travels from the nozzle to the point of impact. What you should be most concerned with, obviously, is "how close to my opponent do I need to be in order to soak him?" What I found is that this distance is more or less equal to the range of the blaster as tested above. My brother and I did a test where we measured the distance from the torso of the shooter to the point on the road where the other person was standing and then compared this to the distance measured using the method previously listed (from nozzle to point of impact on road). We decided that above halfway up the shin was the point we'd shoot for, since soaking someone's shoes, while annoying isn't really the goal of any type of play (soakfest, elimination, score, respawn, etc.) and at that point your opponent would have to be standing perfectly still to hit their shoes/ankles/etc. anyway. The distance between my chest and hitting my brother's knee with an Arctic Blast was 37 ft, a foot further than the 36 ft measured the other way. However, it should be noted that I was firing one-handed with my arm extended out all the way and with the nozzle at about 6' off the ground. We found that the length of the blaster and how you held it affected range. Since this method was very time consuming and required 2 people, and since everyone shoots differently, and because guns aren't all the same length I decided to measure maximum range as the distance from the nozzle to the point of impact on the road. Wow! That was long. I may as well write an article on this.

[SSCBen]

Thanks for posting this thread isoaker. This'll give me the opportunity to think about my own test procedure.

There are two major issues here: 1) optimal firing angle, and 2) how to define range.

In terms of the optimal firing angle, the procedures discussed here are all good, but it becomes very impractical to have to measure 20+ shots for each nozzle. From my understanding, the range changes fairly little within 5 degrees or so of the optimal firing angle. This angle appears to always be below 45 degrees. See the following test results for fire hose nozzles from this paper:



I'd encourage testing to see if you get similar results for water guns. For the sake of saving time, though, I think it'd be more practical to pick a good angle (say 35 degrees) and do tests at that. Be sure to report the angle so people know what "angled" means.

As for what "range" means, there are many issues. I do agree that the definition has to be practical for water wars. Last drop is not practical at all, as a single drop of water is unlikely to hit your intended target. The last puddle is more clear, though Duxburian brings up a fair point. To me, "last puddle" means "last large puddle". This is still somewhat subjective, but when I did last puddle tests I'd choose the puddle where the majority of the water ended up.

marauder, I think you may have missed isoaker's point. What is the "point of impact"? The stream impacts the ground at multiple points, so it's not clear what the "point of impact" is.

What range means has been an issue in the fire hose nozzle research papers I've read. I've seen two papers use a technique that I believe came from sprinkler testing: the "bucket test". Basically, they set up buckets in a grid at a distance from the fire hose nozzle and measure how much water goes into each bucket (disposable plastic bowls might be the way to go for this). This way, you know exactly where the water goes and can measure the amount at different spots. This'll give you a great idea of where the water lands, but it also is very tedious. You can turn that into a plot like the following (also from the same paper I mentioned earlier):



I think for my own tests, I might use the bucket method and define the range as the point where 50% of the water is deposited below/above. So, if a water blaster has a lot of spray, it'll be punished for that. Do you all think 50% sounds reasonable? That should be approximately where most of the water goes, which is what we're interested in.

(As a side note, the plot above is for a fire hose nozzle, which tend to have more spray than water blaster nozzles. I suspect that the transition from 100% to 0% is much shorter in water blasters.)

[isoaker]

That's for sharing those graphs and suggestions on how water distribution can be measured (though it'd require a bunch of cups and decent aim ). Once distribution is determined, defining it as where 50% of the water is deposited makes sense, but would involve measuring volumes of water deposited. Would it be simpler for our purposes is using a cup/bucket capture to select our endpoint as being the container that ended up capturing the most water, or does this result in potential bias for when stream's break apart non-uniformly?

As for what angle to use, while I still want to do some of my own testing, from at plot, ~35 degrees looks like the most promising angle. However, I'd still be curious if 35 degrees seems to work for a variety of water blasters pushing at different outputs and pressure. If there are different optimal angles depending on nozzle setting and blaster, one potential practical solution would be to start range testing by doing a bunch of test shots between 30-45 degrees at roughly 5 degree increments and select the observed best angle, then do the final measuring. For those without an angle meter, I'd say start at 45 degrees (since it's probably the easiest to approximate) and adjust downward to see if the observed range increases.

[marauder]

How much spray are you experiencing isoaker? From my experiences most of the "puddle" happens from splatter occurring from the stream hitting the road and scattering, not from break up mid flight. If you're using a stream nozzle and it's breaking up so much that its impossible to confine point of impact to an area of 1 square foot or less there's something seriously wrong with the gun you're testing.

Last puddle seems to be useful for testing flood nozzles, but in my experiences streams don't break up enough to employ this concept unless you have nozzle blockages or other serious issues.

[isoaker]

For me, level shots likely fall within the +/- 6 inches (total length of splotch being 12") around the middle of the resulting impact area. However, for angled shots, from my recollection, some may stay together while others can end up covering +/- 12 inches (total length of splotch approaching 2'). I have been measuring ranges based on where the splotch is at its widest (most amount of water hitting at that distance) and not expecting to refine range beyond +/- 6" around that point since shows tend to vary by about that much.

I recall trying to video record the impact site on some hard-to-see streams and even the video would fail to clearly show where the majority of the water was falling on angled shots.

[SSCBen]

That's for sharing those graphs and suggestions on how water distribution can be measured (though it'd require a bunch of cups and decent aim ). Once distribution is determined, defining it as where 50% of the water is deposited makes sense, but would involve measuring volumes of water deposited. Would it be simpler for our purposes is using a cup/bucket capture to select our endpoint as being the container that ended up capturing the most water, or does this result in potential bias for when stream's break apart non-uniformly?

I like the suggestion to simply use the most full bucket (the mode in statistical terms). The most full bucket is precisely what we're looking for, so it's more appropriate than my suggestion to use the median.

After some more thought, I think plastic gallon milk containers cut in half with numbered fill markings would be good for bucket tests. These have a few advantages: they are cheap (basically free), readily available, and can be stacked together for compact storage.

Here's how I'm thinking we should test range now:

1) Pick an area with at least 60 feet of free space in one direction and perhaps 5 feet in the other. This area would best be isolated from wind.

2) Pick a firing spot.

3) Fire the water blaster at the appropriate angle down the firing range. See where the water lands.

3) Set up about 15 buckets in a single row with their center approximately where the center of the water impact was.

4) Fire the water blaster X number of times at the appropriate angle down the firing range. Do not empty the buckets between shots; getting multiple shots in will automatically average them. Do not fire when there is wind.

5) Locate the bucket with the most water and measure the distance from the firing location to that bucket.

Any thoughts on this procedure? I've tried to make it both rigorous and easy.

As for what angle to use, while I still want to do some of my own testing, from at plot, ~35 degrees looks like the most promising angle. However, I'd still be curious if 35 degrees seems to work for a variety of water blasters pushing at different outputs and pressure.

I encourage you to do some testing, as I am confident that the best angle varies from blaster to blaster and even between different nozzles on the same blaster. It's also not entirely clear to me that results from fire hose nozzle tests can be extrapolated to water blasters due to the difference in Bond numbers. (Basically, due to their size, fire hose streams will break up at a relatively longer distance and have much more spray.)

From my experiences most of the "puddle" happens from splatter occurring from the stream hitting the road and scattering, not from break up mid flight.

This makes a lot of sense. I'd be interested in doing a bucket test to see exactly how much of the splatter is due to the stream hitting the ground. I imagine taller buckets would help avoid that problem.