Back Pack guns - What's out there, or build my own?

Guides and discussions about building water blasters and other water warfare devices such as water balloon launchers.
DX
Posts: 3495
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Post by DX » Sat Jun 18, 2005 9:56 pm

Last year I picked up a pair of CPS 3200s off Ebay for $20 each. So forget $100, don't even pay more than $50, unless you are a collector and/or have a ton of extra money lying around.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers

frankenbike
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by frankenbike » Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:45 am

Probably more like 95 at night. I'm still not certain about how this is going to take place. 50/50 chance we'll be on roller skates, which could make for an interesting battle, considering skates don't work very well on wet pavement (in which case I might go for a more conventional solution).

If I can find 3200s for less than $30, I'll probably buy them and still go through with building my homemade. There are a whole bunch of the women on my league that need decent weaponry, and I ain't gonna make weapons for all of them. I might need a backup too, since the MTBF on a homemade is unknown, it could spring a bad leak after being exposed to the heat, or any number of things that can go wrong.

Keep in mind that there's a certain attraction to a weapon that is:
A. completely and entirely pumpless,
B. can fire 2 full gallons of water or more continuously in a stream as powerful as a garden hose,
C. can have full control over exact pressure with a regulator and maintain that exact pressure through the entire draining of the tanks.

Sure, there's a certain amount of tradition in pumping a water gun/cannon. But if this is successful, doesn't it open the way for a whole different level of innovation like that which has taken place in paintball weaponry? These days, it's not hard at all to spend $1,000 on a paintball gun and pressure system. Whether I purchase off the shelf/museum weapons or not, a powerful homemade is utterly unique and is a direct reflection of the personality of the person who designs and builds it. That is, if it works as expected.

If it doesn't, I can use the CO2 tank for other pressure projects. Tennis ball cannon, water balloon launcher, portable airbrush system (though I'd have to add an expansion chamber for that), emergency tire filler on long distance motorcycle trips...

But you guys have to stop visualizing little CO2 cartridges. I've moved way past that in my thinking. We're talking a small tank that holds as much CO2 as 40 of those little cartridges. And can be refilled for $3. Or I can refill it with the 50 lb CO2 tank I use for airbrush work. If I succeed in keeping the cost around $100 and anyone decides to copy it, think about the advantages they'd have in a water fight against someone with a conventional pump action water weapon. While the other person is pumping up, they could be drenching them. Then it all comes down to trigger discipline. A pressurized system like that could last all day, through multiple refills.

So I'm getting kind of "pumped up" over making something work that others don't appear to have tried, unless you guys know of something like that. I've been looking, and haven't found it yet (though I've read about guns that used the little CO2 cartridges).

SSCBen
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:15 pm
Contact:

Post by SSCBen » Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:48 am

There's quite a few water guns that have used CO2 before. I've seen pictures of at least two, but I am sure there are far more.
Here's the ones I know of:<ul><li>http://www1.iwvisp.com/thehalls/UberSoa ... oaker.html
<li>http://studentservices.engr.wisc.edu/in ... /2001.html</ul>Also, C in your list is what makes Constant air/gas pressure. Just using a regulator to keep the pressure constant. :cool:

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:13 am

Keep in mind that there's a certain attraction to a weapon that is:
A. completely and entirely pumpless,
B. can fire 2 full gallons of water or more continuously in a stream as powerful as a garden hose,
C. can have full control over exact pressure with a regulator and maintain that exact pressure through the entire draining of the tanks.


If you manage to create such a 'beast', please do share some pics and info on your designs if you'd be willing. While I, myself, haven't done any home-building of a soaker as of yet, reading and learning about these devices is pretty cool.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

frankenbike
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by frankenbike » Sun Jun 19, 2005 2:57 pm

isoaker_com wrote:If you manage to create such a 'beast', please do share some pics and info on your designs if you'd be willing. While I, myself, haven't done any home-building of a soaker as of yet, reading and learning about these devices is pretty cool.

:cool:

I most certainly will. That's all part of the fun. Especially if this is, as I think it is, a first (unless someone beats me to the punch after my mentioning all this ;) ).

Edit: Never mind, I just saw the previous post which shows something that's a lot like what I plan to build. Evidently, the performance is as expected. Evidently the result was one of my concerns: none of the other "kids" will want to play with me anymore ;)

Looks like I'm reinventing the wheel, but I do have my own take on elegance and portability ;)

My design isn't very satisfying in its complexity. It's basically just a portable "power washer". Prior art does, however, state that it's an effective design ;)

I like the 2nd one, that was done by the engineering student. It looks overly complicated for what it does if I've figured out the line routing correctly. I wonder if he made what is essentially a "steam pump" taking advantage of the cooling properties of expanding CO2 gasses, and using the room temperature water to drive the engine the way boiling water is used in a traditional steam pump?

If anyone doesn't understand that:

1. you have a piston with an air chamber of room temperature air.

2. You inject a sub-freezing coolant. The air cools rapidly and creates a relative vacuum, pulling the piston with it.

3. You inject a small amount of room temperature water and it instantly heats up the air, pushing the piston in the opposite direction.

4. On the other side of the piston, you have your water chamber, and the water is forced out through a nozzle.

Making this work would be pretty tricky, and a brilliant feat of engineering. Just pressurizing a tank is something a non-engineering-educated person could come up with just knowing the parts are available. I didn't even know anyone else had made something like what I had in mind, and I could still come up with it independently ;)




Edited By frankenbike on 1119213029

SSCBen
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:15 pm
Contact:

Post by SSCBen » Sun Jun 19, 2005 3:21 pm

^ Nope, sadly it isn't a first. To the best of my knowledge, Dekard's water gun in which he invented Constant air pressure sounded pretty much about the same. I also believe that UberSoaker I posted was essentially a Constant gas pressure design. That's no reason not to improve the designs however.

I've had my own similar design made, but I was waiting for money (I only have about $210 saved for it).

To improve over the past designs, skip the sweeper nozzle which is out of stock and go to McMaster.com. Search for "hose nozzles" and use the 6" long nozzle A. I've read about how less pressure is lost in the nozzle when the angle of the nozzle is smaller (and therefore the nozzle itself is longer), and that nozzle is nearly perfect for the job. :;):

(Try looking up some stuff about minor loss coefficients for gradual contractions in a fluid mechanics book for the scientific explanations. Essentially, the smoother the flow the better.)

You may also want to try using a frame backpack to hold the water if you are looking to make this backpack based. I've made a simple PVC backpack with leftover parts and a frame backpack I found in the trash - despite the fact that it holds about 5 liters of water, it feels featherlight.

I've also considered a few weird things for my CAP design such as making it double as a WBL launcher for situations where you are out of water but have plenty of air left. I've also considered making some sort of additive injection system, but that idea has little value because it probably wouldn't work very well.

There's so much to be done and I'm damn glad that someone else finally sees it!

frankenbike
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by frankenbike » Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:08 pm

Wow. Good advice. I already knew about the principle of "the smoother the flow" which was why I planned to use a long tube of nearly the same diameter as the nozzle (but slightly larger). If I could still source brass sweeper nozzles locally, I could pick up a couple of them, bore them out in the lathe, and then make inserts of varying diameters, so I could set it to stun rather than "drench". That way, I could keep the pressure up and still keep distance without taking all the sport away ;)

I'm looking for bargains on backpack frames right now (with waist belts). My plan was to attach the tank directly to the frame.

I thought about the WBL thing as well. But making the device dual purpose is far more work than just bringing a 4" diameter PVC pipe with an end cap and ball valve on it. You just take the CO2 charger and hook it up to the WBL. Once you have a regulated CO2 system, it's like a battery you can use on a bunch of different power tools.

If you're creating a pump and pressure tank system, the principle is the same. You just have to make it modular and detachable. It's just bigger and more work ;)

You might want to check out using the quick disconnects used for power tools. There's a little loss involved, but not much if you're using the air power in the immediate future.

I have a suggestion for that, BTW. You can use one of the small CO2 tanks as your air capsule, say a 20oz, which are good for at least 1000psi, and use a smaller diameter pump for increased pneumatic leverage. More pumps, but greater pressure and it'll last longer. Limiting yourself to the 150psi world of PVC means a much bigger tank to lug around. You can also make a lever action pump, which essentially increases your mechanical leverage at least 2 to 1, to make it easier to obtain high pressures.

The reason I suggest the smaller but higher pressure tank is that in the field, you want to utilize your volume for water capacity, not waste it on thick air ;)

Anyway, know anyplace in particular that has bargains on backpack frames with straps? I'd like to keep it down below $20. Nothing on Ebay I could find right now.




Edited By frankenbike on 1119215570

SSCBen
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:15 pm
Contact:

Post by SSCBen » Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:48 pm

I found my second frame backpack in the trash. It was very dirty, slightly broken and missing a belt, but the belt can be bought online for about $20 (not that I bought one - I used the one from my first backpack because the second one was larger). After a good cleaning the backpack was essentially as good as new.

Try asking old Boy Scouts or hikers if they have anything to spare. Or, check the trash, pawn shops and thrift stores. I also had three other backpacks available, so it really didn't matter if I found one.

You can easily get 400+ PSI rated PVC. Schedule 120 pressure rated PVC looks like it'll take a beating from where I'm standing. I know someone who has some schedule 40 350 PSI rated 4" pipe in their spudgun... PVC isn't restricting unless you're looking at dangerous pressures.

I also am not using a pump in what would be my design. I've made 4 water guns that need pumps and it's about time I used something else. It's also about time my two air compressors got some more serious use. I've designed it to use two PVC tanks on the sides on the water tank which will hold more than plenty of air.

Quick disconnects would be a very good idea! I was going to use a plain schrader valve, but I suppose I'll try both now.

It's far more likely however that my compressor won't be able to get pressures over 200 PSI though. It also is likely that the regulator I am going to use won't be able to handle over 200 PSI of pressure as well. :laugh:

Two feet of 6" pipe is a bit over 11 liters of water (almost 3 gallons), so I am not worried about capacity. I plan on having two air chambers 2 feet or longer and one water chamber two feet or longer.

I'm looking for practicality and I personally don't feel that CO2 is practical for water fights. I use a lot of water during most water fights and I'm not going to keep going back to a store to get a tank refilled every few battles. Just my opinion I guess.

The WBL idea I had worked out because it is very simple (remember K.I.S.S.). I would use a 1" brass ball valve with threaded ends, and to switch to WBL mode, all I would need to do is unthread the water gun nozzle part. Simple!

Read some of the articles on Super Soaker Central for more information on good water gun design practices. I'm actually trying to write down everything I know... so keep your eyes open and pick up a fluid mechanics or dynamics book at your library. You probably won't understand most of it, but what you do will help you greatly.

I don't know how to use differential equations very well, so I read my fluid mechanics book for theory. :cool:

McMaster.com also has a gallon of glycerin available for $40. If you're looking to increase your range further, mix 1 part glycerin for every 19 parts water and you will see a range increase. Higher concentrations will increase range further. I do not recommend additives however because they are just plain expensive and have a higher potential for abuse. I also am not sure if what McMaster has is the food-grade glycerin that would be safer.

Keep the discussion going! I love this kind of discussion.

frankenbike
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by frankenbike » Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:45 am

Doom wrote:Or, check the trash, pawn shops and thrift stores.


We have a Salvation Army store that's a good candidate for something like that. I am not going to rummage through trash.

You can easily get 400+ PSI rated PVC. Schedule 120 pressure rated PVC looks like it'll take a beating from where I'm standing


I asked my dad about this tonight. He said schedule 80 would be perfect if I can find it. Give me much more wiggle room, especially considering possible operation in the high end of the allowable temperature range. Not as good as Sch.120, but better than 40. I'm not going to be running about 125psi, except possibly briefly if the regulator I'm working with isn't too precise at the low end of its range (currently looking at CMI R2000 regulator).

It's also about time my two air compressors got some more serious use. I've designed it to use two PVC tanks on the sides on the water tank which will hold more than plenty of air.


You likes your guns big, doncha? ;)

Two feet of 6" pipe is a bit over 11 liters of water (almost 3 gallons), so I am not worried about capacity.


Hmm. I might rethink my design a little. I was going to use 3 12" long 4" pipes. The difference in diameter shouldn't change my COG significantly, and it would simplify the design if I just went with 2 12" long 6" pipes instead. Lot less hardware involed, faster design to prototype cycle ;)

I'm looking for practicality and I personally don't feel that CO2 is practical for water fights. I use a lot of water during most water fights and I'm not going to keep going back to a store to get a tank refilled every few battles. Just my opinion I guess.


You could set up your own refill station at home like the paintball guys have. Big CO2 tank to refill the little cylinders.

Using low pressure like 200psi (if that) you'll be fighting with a much larger air tank to get equivalent performance. You could be carrying that much more water ;)

The tradeoff is that 1 lb of CO2 (which will fit in a bottle the size of one of those extra large beer cans) is the equivalent of 4 gallons of air at 200psi. It's all about what size containter you feel like lugging around.

The WBL idea I had worked out because it is very simple (remember K.I.S.S.). I would use a 1" brass ball valve with threaded ends, and to switch to WBL mode, all I would need to do is unthread the water gun nozzle part. Simple!


But you're still carrying the empty water tanks. And I presume presurizing that volume of air. Or you could make it so you could detach a hose from the water tanks and just go directly from the air tank.

So you gonna make the WBL a shoulder launcher like a bazooka?

Read some of the articles on Super Soaker Central for more information on good water gun design practices.

so keep your eyes open and pick up a fluid mechanics or dynamics book at your library. You probably won't understand most of it, but what you do will help you greatly.


While it would be nice to gain an education in a whole new field, it's not really practical for me. Generally more practical is to find someone with the knowledge (like my dad with 50 years of engineering experience) to go over my design and tell me if I'm missing anything or adding something that might make things better.

Honestly, there isn't much beyond simple principles that's going to make simple designs better or worse.

There are various ways you can obtain or store pressure. You can change the diameter of the nozzles, create laminar flow guides, increase valve flow, improve straight line flow, etc.

In our case, our designs are constrained by "available material based design". If I were machining parts from scratch, my priorities would be different. Since I'm going by conveniently available parts, empirical design is much more practical. Hook something up to the garden hose, see how it works, and it gives me a ballpark estimate of expected performance if I back-design a system which should have similar input characteristics.

I don't know how to use differential equations very well, so I read my fluid mechanics book for theory. :cool:


Have you considered a career in water gun design? Oh, never mind, they're trying to make them less powerful ;)

I knew about the glycerin trick. It increases water cohesion, but if people find out you're using it, they won't be happy. Even food-grade (you can get it from home brewery supply stores for about $45 a gallon, no shipping). I don't feel like explaining that it's harmless and washes out or that it's in the food they eat and beer they drink.

In addition to glycerine, you can also use "environmentally friendly" antifreeze, which is pretty cheap. Same problem dealing with people who aren't equally fanatical. If you happen to hit innocent bystanders who aren't happy being hit by a blast of water, you could be in a situation where you find yourself in a police station and calling a lawyer and bail bondsman if they find out there was anything besides water in there. You can find yourself in that situation anyway, since some cops don't like anyone having fun.

BTW, I've thought of other designs. A spring based design using an old motorcycle fork spring and a lever and ratchet to preload the spring. A little complicated for the expected result. A liquid nitrogen piston system to drive a dual chamber piston (the steam pump concept). That would use a much smaller liquid nitrogen bottle than you'd need for a CO2 system, pressure or steam pump. But then again, it would be much more dangerous.

Also a system where you have one large PVC pipe that fits into another with o-rings around the inner pipe for a good seal, and a ratchet tie down strap and pully system to compress the two together.

Seriously, I don't know if there will ever be the kind of market for adult level water guns in the $200+ range that there is for paintball guns, but I think much more can be done with them. The main issues are soak, range, weight, capacity and portability. If such a demand materialized, I have no doubt it would be evolve exclusively into a system based on CO2 or HPA power. Hand pumps and low pressure (anything under 600psi) systems would be entirely out of the picture.

Economy is the only issue that keeps that from becoming the universal standard for water guns. When the market is adults who earn a good living, 3 dollar refills, and having a handful of bottles on hand worth a couple of hundred bucks is no obstacle.

But then, that would no longer be neighborhood fun where you fill the tank with the garden hose in front of the house. Then you're talking about organized battlefields, specialized filling stations, additives...the whole nine yards.




Edited By frankenbike on 1119250746

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:39 am

Economy is the only issue that keeps that from becoming the universal standard for water guns. When the market is adults who earn a good living, 3 dollar refills, and having a handful of bottles on hand worth a couple of hundred bucks is no obstacle.

Actually, while partially true, I'd still have to tag on the safety factor as well. Unlike paintball guns and AirSoft/bb guns, water blasters are just more easily abused simply by filling it with a different liquid. Doing a search under "Super Soaker" these days continuously pulls up some fairly dumb things some do with just current stock soakers. I'd hate to know what some would do with a 2 gallon lobbing behemoth on a bad day.

I'd love to see more powerful soakers and companies would undoubtedly be happy to make 'em if people bought them and used them happily. However, manufacturers are fearful of safety concerns and horridly bad PR should one of the higher-powered water blasters be used to injure/kill another and/or do serious property damage. I think the average stock soaker's power and quality can be raised, but I still believe there should be a limit that is set lower than those building homemades are striving for.

There are those around constantly wanting to push the upper limit, but for me, the upper limit is still what can be used safely without the need for additional safety equipment (except, perhaps, of some lightweight eye-protection). Seeing new designs are intriguing, but building soakers that saturate another in a blink of an eye makes a waterfight rather pointless too quickly.

Perhaps I'm too much of a conservative water warrior. :goofy:

Sidenote: don't get me wrong. I don't want to discourage anyone in this group from going for building the biggest, best water blaster they can. However, the thought of just any consumer getting their hands on such things does scare me since some may not use them for the same fun-based activities this group has in mind.

As for limits, to me, it's akin to baseball bat regulations. Corked bats would allow hitters to slug the ball much greater distances, but then this would really affect (even detract from) the way the game is played. IMO, if it's distance or power you're after, water warfare won't fit it. Individuals pushing limits is fine and it's neat to see what some come up with, but to go general with harder, extremely farther firing blasters isn't something I'd personally push for. To me, the limits imposed by the stock blasters just force more thought to be used when playing.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

frankenbike
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by frankenbike » Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:52 pm

isoaker_com wrote: Actually, while partially true, I'd still have to tag on the safety factor as well. Unlike paintball guns and AirSoft/bb guns, water blasters are just more easily abused simply by filling it with a different liquid.


That's not the "Safety Factor". That's the "Dumbass Factor". We seem to have the two very confused in modern society. I was going to say American society, but that dumbass in Londen who squirted Tom Cruise in the face with a fake microphone proves it's international.

So laws, regulations and courts always try to put a superficial bandage over all activities to limit the damage dumbasses do to themselves and others. They confuse the tools of dumbassery with the fact that the tools are irrelevant: the real problem is the dumbasses themselves.

You just know someone is going to see that flame thrower demonstration by a group of lucky dumbasses who didn't set themselves on fire, and they will then copy it and demonstrate what happens when unlucky dumbasses try the same thing.

I'd love to see more powerful soakers and companies would undoubtedly be happy to make 'em if people bought them and used them happily. However, manufacturers are fearful of safety concerns and horridly bad PR should one of the higher-powered water blasters be used to injure/kill another and/or do serious property damage. I think the average stock soaker's power and quality can be raised, but I still believe there should be a limit that is set lower than those building homemades are striving for.


There's a lot of things that are going on with paintball weapons which should be leading to horribly bad PR. My under 18 nephew had a paintball machine gun (or still does). You cannot convince me that there's a lot more potential trouble there than with a water gun.

In typical range and injury potential, it's vastly higher. Unless someone shoots poison or fire through a soaker, or shoots someone with a high power stream at close range, soakers will be almost always be safer. Even with additives to increase viscosity, you simply can't get the muzzle speeds in water that you get with paintball guns.

There are those around constantly wanting to push the upper limit, but for me, the upper limit is still what can be used safely without the need for additional safety equipment (except, perhaps, of some lightweight eye-protection). Seeing new designs are intriguing, but building soakers that saturate another in a blink of an eye makes a waterfight rather pointless too quickly.


That's the only reason I hesitate to build what I'm building. But lets face it, on a hot day, while the goal is to be the last person to get soaking wet, the idea is for everyone to get soaking wet to keep cool in the summer heat.

As for safety equipment...eye protection is always a good idea. Most wraparound sunglasses would be adequate, but there are all sorts of safety glasses at a hardware store that would be fine, and they're usually under $10. Goggles are excessive in the heat.

Perhaps I'm too much of a conservative water warrior. :goofy:


You grew up in an era when kids have to wear helmets on their bicycles. I grew up in an era when they didn't even make helmets for bicyclists. Or skateboarders.

I rode 150,000+ miles on motorcycles during an era when motorcyclists in California didn't have to wear helmets. A fair percentage of those miles, I didn't wear a helmet.

So it's understandable that you immediately think of the objects as being unsafe because it's inevitable that some stupid ass will do something stupid with it. We just won't hold the stupid ass completely responsible for their actions. That's because stupid asses don't have as much money as a company that makes something.

Courts used to say that if someone didn't follow instructions and safety warnings, the company wasn't liable. The fact that companies are held liable even when products are misused shows that the dumbasses have effectively taken over ;)

However, the thought of just any consumer getting their hands on such things does scare me since some may not use them for the same fun-based activities this group has in mind.


Sigh. The world has to be dragged down to the level of the most stupid person.

Moms are expected to think that way. The fact that they've brainwashed everyone into thinking that way is sad.

To me, the limits imposed by the stock blasters just force more thought to be used when playing.


I live in a tougher world. My wife and I ride motorcycles, and my wife knocks the crap out of other women in roller derby. Sometimes I get the crap knocked out of me when a bunch of them careen off the track and into me (my wife's league skates on a traditional banked track).

I think there's a place for more limited water weaponry. I think there's a place for more advanced and adult water weaponry. Right now, advanced is left to modifyers and home builders, so it has a difficult time finding it's proper place.

In my case, I'm looking to build a weapon that's capable of at least twice the power I'll probably use it at. I can adjust it down to match the power and expectations of those I'm fighting against, using the capabilities for outlasting them against their better athletic ability.




Edited By frankenbike on 1119297234

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:06 pm

Wow! I seem to have brought about a little more of a reply than I intended/expected. :goofy:
Unless someone shoots poison or fire through a soaker, or shoots someone with a high power stream at close range, soakers will be almost always be safer.

But that's exactly my fear. It is just so much easier to load a soaker with something toxic, nasty, etc. Yes, paintballs and bb's have higher velocities, but soakers have a wider variety of potential abuses in terms of content. You're right on the dumbass issue, but laws can't be made to deal with dumbasses and for some reason, it seems easier to pick on Toy companies. Then again, an adult grade water cannon wouldn't be made under the 'Toy' section so... it's tough to foresee how the public would react to abuses.

I also still find that many underestimate how much energy is required to push out larger streams of water longer distances. A paintball or bb may fire faster, but a solid stream of water packs a lot more punch and can go places paintballs and bbs cannot. The stock CPS2000 lobbed 1L of water out in less than a second and pushed it ~50'. That's 1kg worth of mass being pushed only a relatively short distance (in modders perspective). Paintballs or bbs weigh a mere fraction of that. Yes, water is a liquid and paintballs and bbs are solids, but if you start pushing streams farther or making significantly larger streams, you're pushing a lot of weight that should be respected.

You grew up in an era when kids have to wear helmets on their bicycles. I grew up in an era when they didn't even make helmets for bicyclists. Or skateboarders.

I'm not THAT young. I never wore helmets nor knew anyone else that did. I'm nearly three decades old, y'know. My first water guns were black and looked like the real thing (only that they sucked the life out of 4 AA batteries in the process). :goofy:

The fact that companies are held liable even when products are misused shows that the dumbasses have effectively taken over

Sad, but true. Sadly, what can one do? I'd love to be wielding a water cannon that could out-perform a high-grade firehose. The stream and feel of the kick would be sweet. However, when it comes to water fights, I honestly still find myself looking for less potent blasters since getting close (within 30') and seeing facial expressions beats hosing from a long distance (>60'). Now we're getting into the realm of personal water warfare preferences so it's just one opinion versus another with no right or wrong here.

I live in a tougher world. My wife and I ride motorcycles, and my wife knocks the crap out of other women in roller derby. Sometimes I get the crap knocked out of me when a bunch of them careen off the track and into me (my wife's league skates on a traditional banked track).
I think there's a place for more limited water weaponry. I think there's a place for more advanced and adult water weaponry. Right now, advanced is left to modifyers and home builders, so it has a difficult time finding it's proper place.
In my case, I'm looking to build a weapon that's capable of at least twice the power I'll probably use it at. I can adjust it down to match the power and expectations of those I'm fighting against, using the capabilities for outlasting them against their better athletic ability.

As I said, I do like hearing about what people attempt to do in creating more potent water cannons. With enough interest, there will undoubtedly be more places both on and offline for adults to engage in serious water warfare. However, I find myself walking a thin line between wanting to be supportive, but also having to face the currently reality of dumb liability laws and stupid people foresaking common sense for a seemingly quick thrill no matter how at risk that puts them. There are water drills out there that can cut through rock and sheet metal so water can do alot with the right technology behind it. Sure, that's not the sort of thing you have in mind, but my question becomes what cap should there be when it comes to 'high-powered' water blasters? Without a cap, one could make soakers that could kill at close range, but somehow that'd take the point out of soaking someone. :oo:

As well, as stated before, I still find myself wanting to promote general lighter water warfare with minimal (preferably none) safety equipment needed by participants to enjoy. Sure, upping the power changes the gameplay and makes things more competitive, but it also affects the make up of people willing to participate. I don't want to sound like some 'stick-in-the-mud' or 'super-safety-anal-retentive-guy', but I have to also accept that a wide audience reads these boards, thus feel things need to be put into perspective.

The world has to be dragged down to the level of the most stupid person.
Moms are expected to think that way. The fact that they've brainwashed everyone into thinking that way is sad.

I wouldn't say everyone as you and others here likely share your views. Besides, that's media marketing, hype, sensationalism, and way too many sucessful lawsuits that would have most common sense thinkings going, "WTF?", does to the rest of the public.

Individual creators are safer since it is usually not rewarding enough to sue an individual. Companies with money are better targets, thus must be ever more vigilant to protect themselves against dumbass lawsuits. That's why I don't mind reading about them, but have to be careful about how much I officially 'support' such endeavors as my own online accessibility and presence is a little larger.

'tis human nature to always want more. Nothing wrong with more for those with the responsibility and common sense to use 'em. However, incomplete knowledge can be a dangerous thing wherein lies my dilemma. Tough world or not, should I ever read somewhere about someone getting seriously injured from following something they read off of iSoaker.com, even if I weren't sued and even if it was that person's sheer folly or stupidity, I'd still feel some sadness regarding it. As such, I strive to prevent problems than needing to deal with them should they arise. Some say I care/worry too much. :goofy: Oh well...

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

SSCBen
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:15 pm
Contact:

Post by SSCBen » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:04 pm

I am not going to rummage through trash.


You won't have to. Most backpacks don't fit in trash cans. Mine was sitting next to the trash. It actually was a fairly rare Boy Scout backpack with a High Adventure patch (which adds to the rarity). I admit, it was pure luck, but there's no reason it won't happen again. Keep your eyes and ears open for a frame backpack.

I'm also not going to get into this homemade-safety argument because everyone already knows my stance.... in short, everything is only as safe as the person using it. I still haven't been contacted about modifications or homemades gone bad after two years of running Super Soaker Central. :;):

frankenbike
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by frankenbike » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:18 pm

Keep in mind that power washers push 5 gallons per minute out a 1/4" orifice at 4000 PSI in some cases. I haven't heard of anyone getting killed with a power washer yet. And people who use them do turn on one another occassionally.

Existence of a device does not guaranty abuse. Paintball guns can kill, they can put your eye out, etc. Yet there are many manufacturers.

I'm not saying that a toy company should have an adult line. Just the fact that they're a toy company puts them in a weak position in a court of law. After all, their primary expertise is in selling to minors.

What I am saying is that a company that makes paintball guns has the technology and tooling to make an adult level water weapon, and the marketing channels to make sure it minimizes the chance that it will wind up in the wrong hands. No guaranty of that. Lots of things wind up in the wrong hands.

As for the energy required for adult level water weapons, keep this in mind: E=1/2MV^2. You're moving a lot of mass, but not at a very high velocity, and not all at once. And unlike projectile weapons, the velocity slows and coherence of the load decreases with distance, no matter how laminar your flow.

I also worry about people copying my design (which appears to be an inadvertent copy of other people's designs) and injuring themselves or others. That's why at some point I said it goes into "Don't try this at home" territory. But the alternative is to put an anchor on society and make all of civilization something that is only suited to the mentality and responsibility of a 12 year old. That isn't right in a free society.

In my father's day (my father is 80), it was common for kids to make their own gunpowder and experiment with it. Some of them hurt themselves really badly or got killed. You still hear about that sort of thing from time to time today. In my day, we did dangerous things with solvents, gasoline and sometimes welding supplies. We had the additional working material of old, unstable, nitrocellular film being disposed of that made excellent solid rocket fuel. None of my group got injured, because we were paranoid and took extra precautions to avoid injury such as remote timing devices.

Recently, I read about a couple of dumbasses putting gasoline in flourescent tubes and injuring themselves trying to make "light sabers".

Stupid people are infinitely creative in finding new ways to injure themselves.

Now, it's easy enough to make a high powered water gun that can't be weaponized with volitile fluids. Just put a material in the stream flow that dissolves and plugs the gun up when exposed to hydrocarbons or esthers. That's simple enough. Put it in the trigger mechanism, which is the hardest to modify.

It's harder to get people to wear eye protection. Though, given that water warfare is a summer activity, you'd expect most people would be wearing sunglasses anyway. Like all weapons, the least primary danger is to the eyes. It's very hard to picture any weapon in the range we're talking about, the sub-200psi mark, being dangerous directly in any other way.

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:49 pm

Well, I pretty much agree with everything you've stated. As I noted, though, I just need to balance my desire to read/hear/see creative things people do trying to push the envelop with trying to keep things within certain limits that I don't consider too dangerous. By all means, go for building what you feel you need to build. There's nothing wrong with that. However, as the owner of this domain and main Admin on the board, I have to find a balance between the cool-factor and the potential abuse factor. Thanks for helping flesh out a lot of good thoughts.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

frankenbike
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by frankenbike » Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:52 pm

Thought I posted this.

Back to the original idea of the thread in getting design opinions.

I'm looking at power washer guns instead of a garden hose gun. That'll give it a kind of sano look, at least the ones I've been looking at.

Most have 1/4" tubes coming out of them. This might be good for the purpose in mind, since it would limit flow to something not too devastating and save some water. There is only one that I've found that has a 3/8" outlet, this one: http://www.pressurewashersdirect.com/catalog...._id=148

Kind of pricey, but it does look cool and dangerous. I can't figure out if it comes as pictured, which looks like it has a short lance attached already, but the ad says it requires an additional lance. I'll try to investigate furter before making a purchase.

Otherwise, all the rest I've found are 1/4", some a whole lot cheaper.

Opinions?




Edited By frankenbike on 1119322361

SSCBen
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:15 pm
Contact:

Post by SSCBen » Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:25 pm

There is no advantage to using a power-washer gun over some other options. First off, the internal diameter is far too low for serious output, but if that is not what you are looking for, then this may be for you. Second, the price is far too high. Third, there are no real advantages to using a power-washer gun aside from the trigger-like operation and ability to handle high pressure.

I prefer simple ball valves, but some people have a serious issue with ball valves and insist on trigger-like operation. Trigger-like operation wouldn't be hard with a spring-loaded ball valve, but that apparently is a secret...

Ball valves are also the best you can buy if you have performance in mind. The straight flow through them is simply perfect for reducing turbulance.

I also use eye protection for nearly every water battle. Most of the time I use fog-free shop googles that look silly, but get the job done. It's not that I'm afraid of blowing an eye out, it's only that I can't see when shot in the face.

frankenbike
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Post by frankenbike » Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:01 am

Doom wrote:
There is no advantage to using a power-washer gun over some other options. First off, the internal diameter is far too low for serious output, but if that is not what you are looking for, then this may be for you. Second, the price is far too high. Third, there are no real advantages to using a power-washer gun aside from the trigger-like operation and ability to handle high pressure.

I prefer simple ball valves, but some people have a serious issue with ball valves and insist on trigger-like operation. Trigger-like operation wouldn't be hard with a spring-loaded ball valve, but that apparently is a secret...


My desire to use the power washer gun is pure cosmetics. I'd like to find one that could handle the volume, or adequate volume. There's a Campbell-Hausfeld model that is 3/8" instead of the standard 1/4". It's about $15 more than some of the 1/4" ones.

The ball valve is certainly more efficient. But difficult to use in short bursts in a running battle. Constructing a trigger link to a valve is...well, more trouble than it's worth.

Since I've noticed people run 1/4" nozzle sizes, I was wondering if a long 1/4" tube gives better stream coherence, without the turbulence generated by the stream being reduced from a larger diameter pipe.

The price being high isn't really too much of a facter. It's not all that high. I'd hate to spend $40 when I could spend $25. But if it works, there's a definite cool factor.

What I'd like to know is whether anyone has first hand experience with them, or whether there's a link to something like that on the net.

I haven't been able to find anything, except that guy who won the engineering prize in Wisconsin for his CO2 water gun (jeez, against real engineering projects at that).

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:53 am

While I lack the experience, wouldn't it be possible to re-laminate the stream using the 'straws and screen' trick just prior to the exit orifice of the nozzle if opting to use a larger diameter pipe? The may extend the nozzle region a bit and also result in some 'dead weight' water being left in the nozzle after between shots, but could serve to keep streams more coherent.

1/4" choices seem to me to be a good balance between power and stream consistency. Large stock soakers like the CPS2500 and CPS2000 had closer to 1/2" nozzles and pushed out beautiful streams. However, the bigger soakers also include the straw-type lamination device to smooth things out.

Theory aside, those are the sort of things that stream tests on the trigger-nozzle assembly (perhaps using a standard garden hose as water source for initial tests) would come in handy. I believe you could go for the larger piping, but if stream turbulence is a problem, the solution may not be too bad, either.

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

SSCBen
Posts: 1616
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:15 pm
Contact:

Post by SSCBen » Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:10 am

While I lack the experience, wouldn't it be possible to re-laminate the stream using the 'straws and screen' trick just prior to the exit orifice of the nozzle if opting to use a larger diameter pipe? The may extend the nozzle region a bit and also result in some 'dead weight' water being left in the nozzle after between shots, but could serve to keep streams more coherent.


I've tried the straws and such out and for now the answer is simply no. The straws work by reducing the internal diameter of certain areas which will allow the water to flow straighter. I personally do not believe the screens to much anything.

I have not seen any real differences with 4" straws added. Simply put, you shouldn't ever need to use those except as a last resort if your water gun can barely put out a stream. Because we know how we should construct a water gun now, we should not rely on cheap tricks that are not of the highest possible design standards.

Since I've noticed people run 1/4" nozzle sizes, I was wondering if a long 1/4" tube gives better stream coherence, without the turbulence generated by the stream being reduced from a larger diameter pipe.


I've actually tried adding a "barrel" to my CPS homemade to see if there was any difference in range. The range appeared to be decreased in the few shots I took, barely enough to make reliable conclusions. I have read that friction from the pipe will slow down the water flow, and I would attribute the decreased range to that.

A long small internal diameter tube will increase the lamination of the water stream, but it will also affect the water in other ways. There is less friction with larger pipes because less of the total water is touching the pipe, but the stream will not be "shaped" anywhere near as easily on larger pipes as well.

The pressure-washer gun also does not appear to have straight flow from where the water enters, and I also am doubtful that it's valve allows for straight and smooth flow. Like the nozzles, pressure can and will be lost if the water has to travel through an "odd" shaped anything, including valves.

The idea is to make a water gun, the rest is optional. ;)

The price being high isn't really too much of a facter. It's not all that high. I'd hate to spend $40 when I could spend $25. But if it works, there's a definite cool factor.


A simple ball valve assembly I'm sure wouldn't be more than $15, likely far less. Given the price and performance issues, I personally would stick with the ball valve.

I bet there is nothing out of the ordinary with a pressure-washer gun. Just buy the gun, some hose for it and hook it up to your water gun!

Due to years of homemade water guns being taboo, barely any developments have been made, so you can (and should) pioneer the pressure-washer gun.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests