Measuring statistics on piston-based water blasters

[isoaker]

Starting in 2013, I plan on determining more complete stats on piston-based water blasters as well. This will involve,of course, ditching some former presumptions. However, before I go into more detail on how I plan to determine some stats, anyone else here have suggestions or recommendations on this idea? Anyone here even think it is possible to determine reasonable numbers for stats like output and shot time? Would this info be useful to you and would you trust it?

[Fishfan]

Well, I don't know. I Think it would be better to measure the length of the pump, and how many ounces in a single pump instead of "shot time" because shot time varies based on strength with piston based guns. My younger brother, when he uses a scatter blast, has longer shot time than me, because I pump faster than him. If that makes sense at all.

[Poseidon2000]

what about the supercannon2? :p

[marauder]

I think for guns with somewhat of a pressure chamber, eg the Shotblast, this would be possible. With other, more simplistic guns not so much.

[soakinader]

I think you might want to take a page from Calculus on this. Sometimes you can never reach the limit, only approach it as much as possible, and you will have to take that approximation as the answer. Applying this to your problem, push/pull as hard as you can, and take that as your output/range/shot time rating. Pushing harder might get a nominal amount more power out of the blaster, but it becomes smaller and smaller with the same difference in force. Only so much water can come out of the nozzle at once. I know that some people might wish to know what kind of power they can get with a reasonable amount of force (easy shooting), and I understand that, you don't/can't always pump like a pro wrestler, but then what is a reasonable amount of force? Better to just push the blaster to the limit and go with the maximum.

[isoaker]

Thanks to those who shared their ideas, thoughts, and concerns above.

The following is how I plan to do testing on piston-based blasters and why I consider it to be an acceptable way of doing it. Of course, if someone sees a flaw in my thinking, please let me know and I'd be happy to adjust things.

Overview:
Pump volume is already measured for piston-based blasters. Then, to determine output, just need to figure out how long it takes to empty the pump.

The Concerns:
As noted, different people pump differently and the speed at which the chamber empties may vary. However, this is also true for pressurized water blasters in that different people pre-pressurize or fill their blasters differently, also leading to differences in stream performance.
However, as also noted, the increase in output from a piston-based blaster is a non-linear increase. Due to the shape of the pump and the size of the nozzle, increasing the amount of force applied ends up having diminishing returns in terms of how much increase in output actually observed. As I consider myself to e of average build and strength, I should be able to operate piston-based blasters as good as the majority of the population while those significantly stronger will not likely see significantly better stream performance than I can produce from piston-based blasters. While I may not be able to push water out quite as hard as someone much stronger, it's still probably within 95%-98% the top potential level.
The good thing about piston-based blasters is that since the stream is generated from force applied by one's arms, unlike standard air-pressure systems, the pressure through the shot remains fairly constant, akin to CPS-type blasters (which helps explain why large piston-blasters can achieve as good or even better ranges that air-pressure-based blasters).

Thus to determine output, just need to measure the pump volume and time how long it takes to empty the pump. Take the volume, divide by time, and you have output. The catch is that shot time needs to be measured more accurately since small variations in time can lead to larger differences in calculated output.

To Measure:
I plan to video record 3 or so shots from a piston-based water blaster being tested. Videos would be taken at 30 FPS. Afterwards, videos would be reviewed and the number of frames from the start of water exiting the nozzle to the last drop of water coming out would be counted. Divide that number of frames by 30 and we have a decent approximation of how long the piston-blaster shot lasted (at least to the closest 1/30th of a second). Do this measurement and calculation 3 or so times and take the average, then can calculate the approximate output from the water blaster.

I will try to do some testing on some piston-blasters I do have to see how easy it is for me to both record and count frames and to see if the numbers calculated seem to make sense. Thoughts on the above most welcome.

[Fishfan]

I'm just wondering, why bother? They aren't much use anyways.

[DX]

Piston blasters in syringe style can achieve huge ranges. A homemade PVC Piston Pumper with 1" as the shaft and an optimized nozzle can hit up to 58 feet and shoot for several seconds. Add a pair of check valves and a reservoir and you have a long ranged, if inaccurate, soaker that need not stay near a water source.

Pump action style piston blasters do tend to suck, but they can have better performance than pistols and small air pressure. In a war where the arsenals are drawn from limited resources, you may find yourself picking one over a pistol.

[isoaker]

My main goal, really, is just to provide as much information about stock water blasters that I feel I can measure accurately. As Duxburian noted, there are times when piston-based blasters can perform very well. Sure, there are various limitations to them as well, but one should always remain open to looking for the best blaster for the job and be pressurization-system-agnostic.

In another light, I've always never quite liked the idea of not trying to determine more stats for piston-based blasters. After staring at a enough videos of people firing their blasters and thinking about how piston-based blasters actually work, it dawned on me that there, indeed, may be a way to get meaningful numbers where I was unable to before.

[JS]

Actually, piston based blasters are more powerful than one might expect! I have the ww wasp and it is pretty impressive. My cousins also have a lanard blastmaster 660, and it hurts!