WaterWar.net

sbell25 wrote:I never really liked the Blazer. Sure, it may shoot 40 feet, (the one I tried only made 35) but what good is that if it takes ages for the stream to get there? The CPS 1000 is far better in my opinion.

This speed issue for streams is something I'm having a hard time to accept.

When dealing with fairly coherent streams, if two streams fired level to the ground achieve the same range, the streams MUST be travelling at the same speed. If one was travelling faster than another, it would achieve GREATER range.

In the case of the CPS1000 vs Blazer, at least from my test results, the Blazer actually achieved better range fired level than the CPS1000 (See CPS1000 vs Blazer) This actually suggests that the Blazer's stream is faster than that of the CPS1000's stream.

Speed of streams comes more into place when discussion streams that break apart more quickly. When discussion spreading blasts, the initial speed of the blast must be faster at first to achieve the same range of a solid stream since it slows down at a much higher rate due to air resistance. If a spreading blast and a solid stream both achieve the same distance when fired level, both streams' average speed are equal, but the spreading blast's speed was initially faster.

For the above not to be true, gravity would have to be behaving differently on different types of streams. As far as I know, the shape of the streams produced (solid or spreading) do not confer any significant 'lift' properties to the stream, thus gravity should affect both streams equally. If gravity is equal, that means there is a set amount of time it takes for any stream fired level to hit the ground no matter how quickly it is travelling (unless you're dealing with speeds that are nearing those needed to attain planetary orbit). Using good ol' math, based on gravity accelerating at 9.8m/s/s and assuming a height of 1m, it takes ~0.45s for things to hit the ground.

I can assure you that when fired side by side, the 1000 has a lot more power behind it's stream.

The CPS1000 has basically a 5x stream while the Blazer (the model I'm using for comparison) has only a 3.5x stream, thus the CPS1000's stream definitely has more power. It pushes out more volume faster, but overall stream speed is the same if not a little slower. Perhaps coherent streams give the illusion of moving slower?

At any rate, I try to avoid the subjective 'feel' of stream speeds and prefer having measurements. If someone starts measuring stream speeds and notices a difference, I'd be much more believing and would like to know more about how things were measured so that I, too, would also agree with the findings. However, if we're just talking about how different people estimate a stream speed to be, that's not a good point of comparison, IMO.

Side thought: a good example of similar output, but different speeds would be comparing the large nozzles of the Blazer versus the WW Hydrapak/Aquapak. See Blazer Vs. Hydrapak

The measured output of the largest nozzles (Nozzle 5 on the blazer and Nozzle 3 on the Hydrapak) are similar; actually, the Hydrapak is a little more. However, the Blazer's level range is a lot more than the Hydrapak's range. The Hydrapak's largest stream is quite coherent (I'd say better than the Blazer's), but is noticably slower.

At any rate, I try to avoid the subjective 'feel' of stream speeds and prefer having measurements. If someone starts measuring stream speeds and notices a difference, I'd be much more believing and would like to know more about how things were measured so that I, too, would also agree with the findings. However, if we're just talking about how different people estimate a stream speed to be, that's not a good point of comparison, IMO.

The difference in stream speed is not too great among stock soakers of the same type and class. It gets noticable when crossing type [Blazer vs CPS 1000 [hydropower vs normal CPS]], crossing class [CPS 2000 vs any pistol], and extreme when crossing tech [CPS 21K vs CPS 2100]. A simple relative system would bridge the divide by having a universal foundation while being useful in real-time action.

Sure, a pure objective number may not be too meaningful, but unless someone can accurately measure things, I'd be surprised if there is any true difference in stream speeds between stock soakers capable of firing the same distance in a level shot. Heck, even add in modded and homemade soakers into this statement. If the stream reaches the same range on a level shot I seriously doubt one stream is particularly faster than another. This isn't to say that some soakers don't have faster streams. Many soakers have faster stream than others, but these faster streams translate into greater ranges (unless dealing with poor stream cohesion; in that case I'd accept that a stream may exit faster, initially moving faster than a typical solid stream, and is more greatly slowed by air resistance as it breaks apart.)

This isn't to say that some soakers don't have faster streams. Many soakers have faster stream than others, but these faster streams translate into greater ranges (unless dealing with poor stream cohesion; in that case I'd accept that a stream may exit faster, initially moving faster than a typical solid stream, and is more greatly slowed by air resistance as it breaks apart.)

Yet the 1000 still shoots at least as far as the Blazer, so the 1000 must have a faster initial stream speed than the Blazer to do this.

I can agree to this point. The initial velocity of the CPS1000's stream may be quicker, but falls off rapidly due to poorer cohesion and air resistance. However, that then suggests at the latter part of the flight, the stream of the CPS1000 is slower than that of the Blazer if they achieve similar ranges.

As much of general water combat tends to occur at 1/2 to 2/3 max range, this could give the CPS1000 a slight advantage in getting water to a point faster. However, I'd still feel more comfortable seeing either a true side by side stream comparison or having stream velocities measured somehow.

I would like some system of measurement, but I don't know how it could be done in order to bridge the divide between math and logic.

Need a way to time how long a stream takes to reach a point in space. Perhaps a volunteer willing to be soaked by two soakers holding a time to try to time the difference between when the first shot hits versus when the second shot hits. I suspect, though, that the time difference will be very short and hard to measure (though this split-second difference may account for the 0wnage using a faster initial-firing stream).

Thinking a bit, perhaps the simplest thing would be to have a side-profile of the stream picture taken. If one can trace the path of a stream flight, one can start estimating when/where the stream starts slowly and where the stream is performing its best. A smooth, cohesive stream should trace out a nice arc when fired level. A faster-firing, less cohesive stream will appear more level at first, then arc more sharply downwards at the latter end of the stream due to the increased air resistance. If two streams can be fired parallel at the same time and photographed, the difference in overall stream shape should be obvious.

Granted, taking such pictures would definitely be tricky. These pictures are likely only possible with soakers with decent shot times (unless one has much better photographic equipment).