WaterWar.net

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:15 pm**

WaterWolf: Hay Croc,I was just searching the web and found This. I'm kind of doubtful about the 70 feet of range, but has anybody here tried one of these.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

DX: It depends on how strong you are and how fast you move the piston. Then again,you are limited to open water sources, since a Stream Machine draws water like a PPP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

WaterWolf: But has anybody here had any actual experience with one? If it really has a 70-foot range, then in the right hands, it might be a good suppression fire weapon.
What would make it really great is if you could backpack mod one of them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Silence: I doubt it's possible. But, river guns are the simplest guns that come close to such ranges. The reason they're better than piston soakers (which are also good) is that they have linear flow--the water doesn't have any turns or anything before it exits the barrel. Even a simple tee for a backpack would defeat the purpose of this.

EDIT: But that does give me an idea...combining this with another recent discovery to build a crazy PPP. Actually, it had already been suggested. But this is different...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ben: Piston water gun companies are notorious for lying about the range. No current piston water guns can shoot over 50 feet unless you are a body builder. That's a simple fact. I once emailed a manufacturer of piston water guns asking them about the range and I never got a reply back. That simply tells me that they know they are lying and they don't want to stop because it pays.

The new developing hydraulic piston design should be able to get considerably more range,but it still is being developed. I'm working on my own one that should have a force multiplication factor of about 9 times. If anything should be able to shoot 70 feet by only the power of your arm, that would be it.

You can make a design that won't impede the flow to allow a hydraulic piston water gun with a backpack, but it would need a ball valve and the operation would be slightly different. This is a new development... wait until next year for it to be done correctly. I think hydraulic piston water guns with a backpack might be the best water guns around if they work well. Of course, the inventor, waterzooka, is seeking out a patent last I checked so that he will ensure that if any hydraulic piston water guns are manufactured, they will be done right.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

DX: I have seen manufactured ones go over 50, but of course in a non-level, non-windless context. Shoot a Stream Machine off the east face of High Point and you'll get over 80ft! :p

Don't bother modding one when you can make a superior PPP. There's much more potential there, as shown by the above posts ^. On this upcoming long weekend [some of you don't have it :p ], I will build my own improved PPP. Since I hate backpacks, I'm going for an onboard reservoir with a backpack option. I may or may not go for a hydraulic system, depending on what kind/size of seals I can find.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

WaterWolf:Like I said in my first post about it, "I'm kind of doubtful about the 70 feet of range".
I'm not surprised that its just manufacturers propaganda.[/quote]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reposted here because of iSoaker's comment that it was off topic. The original thread was Dream Soaker.

Many EDITS: Because there's some problem with multiple quotes or something. It defines all these HTML parameters like padding when I submitted the modified posts, and everything in general got royally messed up. I removed the use of quotes and just did it like this instead.

Edited By SilentGuy on 1162759139

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:43 pm**

I feel it's safe to double-post here as the previous post shouldn't be confused with this one.

The backpack PPP I referred to shouldn't be too complicated, except in terms of operation--but you'll still save time compared to sticking the nozzle into an invisible source of water. My thoughts were to use the pump design outlined in Scavenger's WWc thread (Schwinn Air Driver Handpump, or something of the nature), along with a ball valve in front. So as I said, it'll pretty much be the exact same thing.

Obviously, you would have to close the ball valve for "filling" the PC, and then open it to shoot. Perhaps there is a system in which the action of pulling out the plunger turns and closes the valve, and then pushing the plunger in opens the valve. It would waste the first bit of water, though...

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:19 pm**

You could drill a hole in the plunger, stick something through it, and connect it to the ball valve. However, that would cut some of the draw-back capacity, not to mention be awkward. Then again, how long would it take to flip the valve? A fraction of a second. Another problem would be if you wanted to take tap shots. With a PPP, you simply stop pushing. You'd have to set the system so the valve would stay open.

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:59 pm**

Well, there would be a piece that would naturally move back with the plunger. It would move the ball valve's handle if the handle was in a certain position (closed), but leave it alone once it's opened. Kinda like if you push your mouse right now (unless you use a laptop): it doesn't come back just if you move your hand back. Alright, I'm terrible with analogies.

But you're right about the turning of the valve taking very little time--at least compared to filling directly from a stream or lake. Having a system to connect the plunger to the valve would be terrible, as its timing would be weird and it would thus be very inefficient.

The only reason it's better than a check valve is for the flow. But if PPPs can also be similarly effective, I might try out using threaded fittings for interchangeable valves. And even a threaded fitting might not be necessary if there's no pressure, but I doubt it.

Ideally, if the check valve didn't affect the stream too much (especially if it's the width of the pump tubing for maximum flow), then you'd have an ultimate weapon.

And on a sidenote, I originally mistook your statement, "You could drill a hole in the plunger," to mean having the intake go through the pump rod. That wouldn't be too bad at all, if the tubing barb (for a backpack) went through one side of the tee. So that's also an alternative.

EDIT: I just noticed that WaterWolf's first post that I quoted in my first post had a link that got lost somewhere along the way. Just know that it pointed to a river gun that advertised 70 feet of range. It had a double barrel, and there were 2-foot and 3-foot single-barrel models too.

Edited By SilentGuy on 1162767684

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:35 pm**

Hmm... how does the valve system in the XP Pool Pumper Cannon work? I'm guessing that it uses a couple of one-way valves to allow water to flow out the nozzle when compressing the firing chamber while closing the nozzle and allowing water to be sucked in through the backside when extending the firing chamber. I would presume this sort of valve system could be easily adapted to a PPP system, even one using hydraulics as discussed at SSCentral.

If I had more time and better access to a hardware store, I'd love to experiment with some blaster tech, but alas, work/life has me too busy currently. One day, hopefully...

Posted: **Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:20 pm**

Yup, all piston guns and PPPs use check valves/one-way valves. The thing about the Stream Machines and river guns is that they don't--because you just dip the nozzle into the water to fill. The bonus is that you have maximum flow, and the water doesn't go around and let the stream break up inside any check valves.

However, a large check valve, perhaps of a non-spring variety but that opens up completely for maximum flow, would be better. At least the inflow method allows for the non-presence of any tees which could divert the stream and create turbulent eddies. From what I know, at least with a smaller nozzle, PPPs can still get decent lamination, but not as much as PC soakers that bypass the system.

EDIT: By the way, here's the topic at WWc: http://waterwarfare.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=92

Edited By SilentGuy on 1162783267

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:12 am**

However, a large check valve, perhaps of a non-spring variety but that opens up completely for maximum flow, would be better.

Is there such a check-valve that is readily available? I'm thinking, if the flow is large enough and there is a decent laminator post-check-valve, stream lamination out the nozzle should be good even if soe turbulence is introduced as water flows about the valve region. Of course, wouldn't want too much material post-check-valve since that volume is technically deadspace when not firing.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:08 am**

Swing check valves would be the kind of valve you are looking for. Drenchenator used them in his homemade CPS water gun. McMaster-Carr sells full swing PVC swing check valves which would be nearly perfect.

From what I've looked at on the ZX-1000, a backpack piston water gun, there is only one swing-style check valve in the piston part itself. The nozzle end has no check valve. I am assuming that the water gun operates on the fact it with a small nozzle on one end, sucking water up is easier than sucking air in. I can only assume that the Pool Pumper works on a similar principle. This principle is not good for high powered piston water guns in my opinion because you will need a nozzle that is big.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:52 pm**

Ah, I just wasn't too sure of it. Thanks for the pointer.

Ben, what's your opinion of the use of a swing check valve? Is it a viable alternative to the ball valve method if you don't want to constantly switch the valve on and off? At least you don't have to worry about the first valve in either case.

IMO, with a river gun, you're striving to reach perfect linear flow and near-perfect lamination, no matter what, which distinguishes such a gun from PPPs. So maybe a swing check valve isn't always desirable.

Posted: **Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:05 pm**

Once I finish my piston water gun, I will evaluate the swing check valve's use in the piston system. They should be what we're looking for, but I really don't know until I test them. I do know that for the valve to work, you usually have to let gravity assist the swinging check. That means the water gun likely will have to be aimed upward during the pull stroke.

If the swing is pushed completely out of the way (as it would be in a full swing type valve), there shouldn't be too much stream obstruction. The flow will be linear, but it probably will be a little obstructed by the swing. I'd trade a slight decrease in efficiency for easier use in this case.

Posted: **Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:39 pm**

Since we are on the topic of check valves, I thought it would be a good time to let you in on another one of my designs. I have a patent pending on this one too, but I dont have drawings that are postable.

It is contained entirely in the nozzle cap of a PPP and it is constructed from only two parts (one being the 2" PVC cap). One of the down falls of a PPP is filling the chamber with water. It takes just as long to fill the chamber as it does to shoot the gun. So, while you are filling, your opponent is soaking you. The check valve I built (and tested) allows the chamber to be filled in less than 2 seconds.

The best part of the design is that it only adds 20-30 cents to the cost of a regular PVC cap. However, it does require some machining. And, it does not effect the flow - so no lamination!

I have three prototypes built and I am waiting from responses from a few different sources that will be machining 100 caps for me. I will keep the boards updated with their status.

Posted: **Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:54 pm**

Nice. That's yet another design to be patented!

Hmm...if I were to design a maximum-flow cap, it would probably flip completely out of the way. Perhaps it would have a weak spring to hold it closed, but it rotates off on an axle. Whatever it may be, congratulations! Indeed, getting an audience greater than just the river gunners could greatly increase your success, so I wish you good luck with the design!

WaterWar.net

PPP Design